# Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding



## tommylicious

Trump and Amtrak: Gotta think he would cut it to the bone, if not even completely scrap it, right?


----------



## greatcats

Would not be surprised. He certainly isn't getting my vote.


----------



## sldispatcher

I'm not sure of anything when it comes to politics and Amtrak.

It seems to me that the most strenuous times for Amtrak seem to happen under Democratic administrations which would seem counter intuitive.

Maybe Trump would go in and straighten out the "mess" that so many on here seem to think Amtrak is in? I just don't see it being cut to the bare bones. I'm so very tired of the status quo with Amtrak.

Would be interesting to know what the vision would be for sure. Maybe someone else has insight.


----------



## neroden

None of the candidates I've been paying attention to have made meaningful statements on Amtrak in this election cycle -- except Trump!

Trump did make a claim that he's going to fix Amtrak infrastructure:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/13/trump-on-amtrak-crash-only-way-to-fix-infrastructure-is-to-elect-me/

So, much though it makes me grind my teeth to admit it, Trump might be fine for Amtrak. Except that he has a record of contradicting himself, so who knows.

Bernie and Hillary have both pretty consistently voted for status quo Amtrak funding. I can't find anything more for Bernie.

Hillary has voted against an amendment to increase Amtrak funding (back in 2007).

(Disclosure: I support Bernie.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The last time I saw Trump talking about Amtrak was immediately after the Philadelphia derailment. Before anybody had any clue what had happened Trump started claiming that this would have never happened on his watch because he would have immediately fixed all of America's infrastructure problems. He never once mentioned how he would actually do this (tea bag pixie dust?) or how it would have helped Amtrak specifically. Every single solution he mentioned appeared to be targeted exclusively toward private and commercial vehicles and aircraft. He never mentioned anything going to passenger rail even once, so apparently his "solution" is somehow completely free, which presumably leaves us with some sort of privatization giveaway followed by cherry picking of assets and eventual dissolution. Personally I think you can find everything you need to know about Trump by looking at how Putin and Burlesconi have run their own governments. They talk the same, act the same, and appeal to the same demographic.



sldispatcher said:


> I'm not sure of anything when it comes to politics and Amtrak. It seems to me that the most strenuous times for Amtrak seem to happen under Democratic administrations which would seem counter intuitive. Maybe Trump would go in and straighten out the "mess" that so many on here seem to think Amtrak is in? I just don't see it being cut to the bare bones. I'm so very tired of the status quo with Amtrak. Would be interesting to know what the vision would be for sure. Maybe someone else has insight.


Maybe it's counterintuitive because Amtrak's funding comes from the legislative branch and _not_ the executive branch. If you're going to focus exclusively on the executive branch then consider Bush (43) who repeatedly submitted budget proposals recommending Amtrak's funding be reduced to _zero_ dollars. Then consider Obama who has submitted budget proposals with increased funding for Amtrak each and every year of his administration. For 2017 Obama is proposing $320 billion in green infrastructure programs that includes passenger rail initiatives and a doubling of the TIGER grant program. Trump hasn't proposed anything halfway detailed enough to analyze. Instead of trying to appeal to thoughtful and mature problem solving Trump's focus is almost entirely on immature emotional whining. Not surprisingly it's working out extremely well for him thanks to millions of uninformed low effort voters.


----------



## cirdan

Devil's Advocate said:


> Personally I think you can find everything you need to know about Trump by looking at how Putin and Burlesconi have run their own governments. They talk the same, act the same, and appeal to the same demographic.


I'm not sure about Berlusconi, but Putin is definitely putting in some high speed trains.

Italy is too, but I'm not sure if those projects were initiated on Berlusconi's watch or were already underway when he came in.

Not that that is in any way a reason to support them, but just saying.


----------



## R Johnson

It doesn't really matter, because even if he gets the nomination, Trump's arrogance will cost him the election. I lean hard to the right myself - and I can't stand him. Needless to say since I lean to the right, I don't think much of Clinton or Sanders either. I have always voted, but this year I may abstain in the presidential race.

I have a bumper sticker on my car that is connected to a 2008 episode of The Simpsons. Ralph Wiggum in 08 Pick a Winner. It will be more appropriate this time around than it was when I put it on the car.


----------



## Chey

"He never once mentioned how he would actually do this"

Yeah, he makes all these claims without _ever_ saying how he would accomplish anything but people just slobber all over his bluster because it's what they want to hear. Voters scare me more than politicians.

It might be helpful if someone asked him specifically how he _feels_ about Amtrak, the response might tell me more than what he claims he's going to do.


----------



## reppin_the_847

The only hope with him is the fact that he's from NYC where trains are a way of life. Without trains, NYC would probably come to a grinding halt.


----------



## PerRock

neroden said:


> None of the candidates I've been paying attention to have made meaningful statements on Amtrak in this election cycle -- except Trump!
> 
> Trump did make a claim that he's going to fix Amtrak infrastructure:
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/13/trump-on-amtrak-crash-only-way-to-fix-infrastructure-is-to-elect-me/
> 
> So, much though it makes me grind my teeth to admit it, Trump might be fine for Amtrak. Except that he has a record of contradicting himself, so who knows.
> 
> Bernie and Hillary have both pretty consistently voted for status quo Amtrak funding. I can't find anything more for Bernie.
> 
> Hillary has voted against an amendment to increase Amtrak funding (back in 2007).
> 
> (Disclosure: I support Bernie.)


Bernie hasn't said much about Amtrak while running for Pres. although as a senator he's been pretty supportive of the system. Here is a statement he released/made about The Vermonter in 2010. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-statement-at-vermonter-groundbreaking

Seeing as he's been fairly consistent in his general stance on things over the years... this statement is probably still pretty true (I haven't fact checked it...)



> I will introduce legislation to use this $700 billion in a much more sensible way. My legislation will require that we use roughly half of that revenue to reduce our national debt and roughly half of that money to rebuild our deteriorating infrastructure -- exactly the sort of essential projects that we are doing when we upgradie rail lines like “The Vermonter.”


peter


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

reppin_the_847 said:


> The only hope with him is the fact that he's from NYC where trains are a way of life. Without trains, NYC would probably come to a grinding halt.


I would tend to agree.

While Trump is an unpredictable wild card on this issue, I can envision him re-building Penn Station. OK, it would be called Trump Station, and have a marble and gold ClubAcela.

A new Trump Station would need an expanded Amtrak presents.


----------



## KmH

tommylicious said:


> Trump and Amtrak: Gotta think he would cut it to the bone, if not even completely scrap it, right?


Uh, Mr. Trump could not do that on his own hook.

He would also need the cooperation of Congress.


----------



## zepherdude

tommylicious said:


> Trump and Amtrak: Gotta think he would cut it to the bone, if not even completely scrap it, right?


I am quite sure he has no plan other than to make it wonderful, place gold fixtures in the rest rooms and have trains every 10 minutes, just like New York Air (aka Trump Shuttle). I know we are not supposed to discuss politics here, but in Trumps case, I could not resist. He will not get my vote either.


----------



## cirdan

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> reppin_the_847 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hope with him is the fact that he's from NYC where trains are a way of life. Without trains, NYC would probably come to a grinding halt.
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree.
> 
> While Trump is an unpredictable wild card on this issue, I can envision him re-building Penn Station. OK, it would be called Trump Station, and have a marble and gold ClubAcela.
> 
> A new Trump Station would need an expanded Amtrak presents.
Click to expand...

He can afford to do that on his own dollar.

Amtrak will be renamed Trumptrak.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Amtrak? It'll be Huge! when I'm President!


----------



## chrsjrcj

I was watching part of a trump rally on the tv and heard him mention infrastructure. He said China has great airports and high speed rail, but of course he never mentioned actually funding similar projects in the US.

In the end, it's really up to the Congress I suppose.


----------



## cirdan

chrsjrcj said:


> I was watching part of a trump rally on the tv and heard him mention infrastructure. He said China has great airports and high speed rail, but of course he never mentioned actually funding similar projects in the US.


I guess actually recognizing that fact is already a positive sign. I guess there are many Reps who wouldn't willingly admit that.


----------



## neroden

Thanks for digging up the Bernie quote, Peter.

Also, Charlie, I can totally envision Trump Station replacing "Union Station" as the typical railroad station name in the US. And gold and marble everywhere. Oy.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Well, our own Bob Dylan has the perfect answer above! We just all write in his name for president  ! (We have to be careful to use his real name, though, and not "Bob Dylan," or we might end up with a president of Amtrak who insists on piping twangy, off-key music through all the cars!)


----------



## greatcats

I will cast my vote for our own Bob Dylan. He knows how to deal with the DC bureaucrats, and as one former Presidential candidate from Alabama said long ago, Dylan would " dump their briefcases in the Potomac!" LOL.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

What's with this idea of *gold *in Trump Station? He never NEVER uses gold in his buildings. It's all sort of gold-colored, well-polished *bronze*. Loud, flashy, phony, and cheap … just like himself.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

WoodyinNYC said:


> What's with this idea of *gold *in Trump Station? He never NEVER uses gold in his buildings. It's all sort of gold-colored, well-polished *bronze*. Loud, flashy, phony, and cheap … just like himself.


Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

WoodyinNYC said:


> What's with this idea of *gold *in Trump Station? He never NEVER uses gold in his buildings. It's all sort of gold-colored, well-polished *bronze*. Loud, flashy, phony, and cheap … just like himself.


I thought this Trump building had gold coated glass?

https://imagesus-ssl.homeaway.com/mda01/67852f56-9f72-492c-82e6-50eae6828ef2.1.10

Potential prototype for a Trump Station's ClubAcela.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/04/16/2D9411AD00000578-3303819-image-a-1_1446653257605.jpg


----------



## niemi24s

Devil's Advocate said:


> Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^


IMHO,"like" buttons are simply ego-strokers unless accompanied by "ho-hum" and "sux" buttons.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

niemi24s said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, like buttons are simply ego-strokers unless accompanied by "ho-hum" and "sux" buttons.
Click to expand...

The more the merrier!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

niemi24s said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO,"like" buttons are simply ego-strokers unless accompanied by "ho-hum" and "sux" buttons.
Click to expand...

Like buttons can keep a thread from getting bloated with short posts saying "This", "I agree", etc.


----------



## Ryan

^^^ What she said.

The functionality is there, just needs to be turned on.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with this idea of *gold *in Trump Station? He never NEVER uses gold in his buildings. It's all sort of gold-colored, well-polished *bronze*. Loud, flashy, phony, and cheap … just like himself.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this Trump building had gold coated glass?
> 
> https://imagesus-ssl.homeaway.com/mda01/67852f56-9f72-492c-82e6-50eae6828ef2.1.10
Click to expand...

You're right. I only know some of his NYC buildings and hadn't paid attention to this one in Vegas. But yes:



> Trump International Hotel and Tower Las Vegas shines with Viracon's 24-karat gold-coated glass. The company applied an optically thin layer of gold to the second surface of insulating glass units enclosing the 45-story tower. Selected not only for dramatic aesthetics, the highly reflective coating lowers heat absorption. ...
> 
> Glass Magazine, 2008


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Does this mean the White House could become the Gold House?


----------



## Eric S

I would guess Trump would occupy a middle ground between a couple of candidates who are perhaps likely to propose budgets that would increase Amtrak funding and a couple of candidates who are perhaps likely to propose budgets that would decrease Amtrak funding (just looking at the Top 5 candidates, 2 Ds, 3 Rs). Or maybe it would be better to say he is a big question mark - perhaps increase, perhaps decrease, perhaps status quo, in regards to Amtrak funding.


----------



## jis

Remember that the President only proposes numbers, which are typically mostly ignored by Congress. It is Congress that comes up with the numbers that actually become law.


----------



## PerRock

jis said:


> Remember that the President only proposes numbers, which are typically mostly ignored by Congress. It is Congress that comes up with the numbers that actually become law.


^^This.

Remember if you really want to support Amtrak in your voting, pick your congressional representatives that support Amtrak. (I probably could say, "if you really wanted to change government...)

peter


----------



## Railroad Bill

jis said:


> Remember that the President only proposes numbers, which are typically mostly ignored by Congress. It is Congress that comes up with the numbers that actually become law.


And therefore: ask your Congressional Rep how he/she stands on Amtrak and vote accordingly. (of course, where I live, there is only one party running for the seat in the House), but an Ohio Democrat for Senate who will support trains.

Ask the questions and see what they say!


----------



## JoeBas

Devil's Advocate said:


> niemi24s said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, like buttons are simply ego-strokers unless accompanied by "ho-hum" and "sux" buttons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more the merrier!
Click to expand...

I *INSIST* on a "Meh" button.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

JoeBas said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> niemi24s said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear goodness we need a like button for this thread. ^_^
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, like buttons are simply ego-strokers unless accompanied by "ho-hum" and "sux" buttons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more the merrier!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I *INSIST* on a "Meh" button.
Click to expand...

I'm _*EXTREMELY*_ lukewarm to this request.


----------



## JoeBas

Exactly. All I know is my gut says maybe.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Remember that the President only proposes numbers, which are typically mostly ignored by Congress. It is Congress that comes up with the numbers that actually become law.


A Civics Lesson that All of the Candidates and most American Voters are badlyin need of, especially that Unreality TV Star with New York Values!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

We all talk about if the right candidates get voted in then Amtrak will flourish.

Well Amtrak hasn't flourished since its inception from what I remember. We've had many more cuts and many cities lose service than we have gains/expansions (and I believe most if not all of the gains have been state funded).

Have we just voted in the wrong people for over 40 years? Or maybe Congress doesn't really have as much an effect on Amtrak as we think they do?


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Or maybe Congress doesn't really have as much an effect on Amtrak as we think they do?


Were it not for Congress, Amtrak would not exist. Two different Presidential administrations - Reagan and Bush - proposed to end all subsidies for Amtrak (sometimes with a vague, fictional promise that private interests would pick up the "profitable" portions).

In the horse trading necessary to pass a budget through a dysfunctional Congress every year, Amtrak is always shortchanged, with compromises that provide just enough funding to keep the trains rolling another year. But it survives every fiscal year too - thanks to the same Congress.

Such shortsighted planning has to change, of course, a point which was made previously - circa 1981 as I recall. Amazing how little the politics have changed.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

A Voice said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Congress doesn't really have as much an effect on Amtrak as we think they do?
> 
> 
> 
> Were it not for Congress, Amtrak would not exist. Two different Presidential administrations - Reagan and Bush - proposed to end all subsidies for Amtrak (sometimes with a vague, fictional promise that private interests would pick up the "profitable" portions).
> 
> In the horse trading necessary to pass a budget through a dysfunctional Congress every year, Amtrak is always shortchanged, with compromises that provide just enough funding to keep the trains rolling another year. But it survives every fiscal year too - thanks to the same Congress.
> 
> Such shortsighted planning has to change, of course, a point which was made previously - circa 1981 as I recall. Amazing how little the politics have changed.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of cities for which Amtrak didn't survive and others who still have service but lost one or more trains (like Philly who lost the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers) for example. Don't ask someone from Phoenix or Las Vegas about Amtrak "surviving" because Amtrak didn't survive for them.


----------



## jis

And it should also be remembered that there are many cities which did not have service on A-Day got service. and some then lost it. Sunset East, Pioneer and Desert Wind are case in point. OTOH Lake Shore Limited was added after A-Day. So there has been ebbs and flows in the history of Amtrak. But make no mistake - Amtrak is a creation and creature of Congress and it lives and dies by what Congress does with it. People who think that an Amtrak CEO can brazenly defy Congress (and even just powerful chairmen in Congress) and go his own way are living in a fool's paradise.


----------



## Big Iron

greatcats said:


> I will cast my vote for our own Bob Dylan. He knows how to deal with the DC bureaucrats, and as one former Presidential candidate from Alabama said long ago, Dylan would " dump their briefcases in the Potomac!" LOL.


I'm reserving my vote for Mr. Hud....er Jim....uh Bob Dylan until I know who his running mate will be!!! 

The list of AU'ers would be long and illustrious.


----------



## Radvlad

How the heck can Las Vegas not support service from Amtrak? Even if it was just Los Angeles/San Francisco to Vegas? I'm also surprised that Phoenix couldn't hang on to service. Wow.


----------



## PRR 60

Let's keep this focused on what we think is or will be Donald Trump's position on Amtrak. In that regard, discussion of the comparative Amtrak positions of other candidates of both parties is fine. To discuss issues like Phoenix and Las Vegas service, please start a new topic.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'm suspending my campaign, and hereby announce that, if Trump is nominated and elected, Everything, including Amtrak, will be HUGE!!!

( and someone else will pay for it!)


----------



## greatcats

Bob- I am writing you in, anyway.


----------



## sldispatcher

As others have stated, I would think Amtrak could actually get a boost from Trump. Not sure about the LD trains, but the day trains could really get a pop.


----------



## NW cannonball

I don't have a clue what the big D might do, or not. The best info I got is, from some source or other, that The Donald was into sponsoring Pro Wrestling a while back.

His candidacy so so far seems like the stuff that "pro wrestlers" spout from the ring before their (fixed) bouts happen. Duh.

I doubt that this dude with his own private Boeing jet has any clue at all about Amtrak users, he's targeting a different demographic now.

Maybe, if elected, he might choose to sponsor "Trumptrak" or not. Who knows?


----------



## andersone

Well from an Ohio perspective if we relecTED (Ted Strickland ) to the senate the former congressman and governor actually started down the 3C path until he was replaced by Kasich who deep sixed it. That should give inspiration for two elections !!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sldispatcher said:


> As others have stated, I would think Amtrak could actually get a boost from Trump. Not sure about the LD trains, but the day trains could really get a pop.


Not even Trump himself has stated he would boost Amtrak. Trump has simply claimed, in the most simplistic terms possible, that he would fix all of Americas infrastructure problems with no explanation as to how any of his "plans" would actually work or why the establishment wing of either party would capitulate to his demands. What other people have tried to say, and you have apparently ignored, is that Trump is no position to control Amtrak's purse strings regardless of his largely undefined position. In order to have any direct control over Amtrak's future Trump would have to threaten a veto over lack of Amtrak funding. Which is a position that would likely incur a serious opportunity cost and force the expenditure of substantial political capital. This seems unlikely to me considering all the other controversies Trump has created or bought into. I think it's virtually guaranteed that the NEC will remain intact in some form regardless of who is elected, but the likelihood that Trump (or any other GOTP candidate) supports having Amtrak run it seems exceedingly unlikely to me. It seems far more likely to me that Trump's "solution" will be to privatize Amtrak as part of a giveaway to one or more of his fellow cronies, just like Putin or Burlesconi would.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> And it should also be remembered that there are many cities which did not have service on A-Day got service. and some then lost it. Sunset East, Pioneer and Desert Wind are case in point. OTOH Lake Shore Limited was added after A-Day. So there has been ebbs and flows in the history of Amtrak. But make no mistake - Amtrak is a creation and creature of Congress and it lives and dies by what Congress does with it. People who think that an Amtrak CEO can brazenly defy Congress (and even just powerful chairmen in Congress) and go his own way are living in a fool's paradise.


Maybe not brazenly defy, but having a guy who knows how to press all the right buttons definietly helps.

Utlimately, nobody likes to cut funding for a service that is popular and has deep rooted support. It's much easier to cut funding for something that most people are disillusioned with. So ultimately Amtrak's performance and perception are key to its survival, maybe more so than its balance sheet. Cue issues with food service here.


----------



## cirdan

Bob Dylan said:


> I'm suspending my campaign, and hereby announce that, if Trump is nominated and elected, Everything, including Amtrak, will be HUGE!!!
> 
> ( and someone else will pay for it!)


you mean Mexico is going to pay for the daily Sunset Limited?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Now that our own Bob D. has suspended his campaign, I do have a serious question about another possibility:

What do you all think of Michael Bloomberg in regard to passenger rail? (Not his chances to win the election, rather what his position might be on passenger rail itself if he did run and win.)

I was impressed when he was mayor of New York that he always strongly encouraged people to take commuter rail instead of their cars when it was bad weather or to a large sporting event, but of course that was local transportation.

Not sure if he would be pro- or anti- long-distance trains, NEC-centric or for the good of the whole country, pro-Amtrak or pro-private rail...anyone have any ideas?

Also, if he decides not to run for president, what about a spot on Amtrak's board for him? (I know he probably couldn't be president of Amtrak if he doesn't have the railroad knowledge necessary for that, but the board could be a possibility?)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Mystic River Dragon said:


> What do you all think of Michael Bloomberg in regard to passenger rail?


Unlike the blond bobblehead who headlines this bobblethread, Micheal Bloomberg has been very clear and concise on his long term support for mass transit infrastructure. In many ways a Bloomberg presidency would likely resemble the current Obama/Biden position of the past eight years. My expectation is that Bloomberg would recommend major funding increases for implementation of substantial capitol improvements followed by taking what he can get on the operational end with a potential veto threat for baseline service impacting reductions.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/michael-bloomberg-even-amtrak-accident-cant-move-congress-2015-05-19

-CRW


----------



## Eric S

I would concur with DA's assessment of Bloomberg. In many ways his administration was more progressive on transportation matters (particularly with regards to street design) than his successor has been.


----------



## Blackwolf

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> reppin_the_847 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hope with him is the fact that he's from NYC where trains are a way of life. Without trains, NYC would probably come to a grinding halt.
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree.
> 
> While Trump is an unpredictable wild card on this issue, I can envision him re-building Penn Station. OK, it would be called Trump Station, and have a marble and gold ClubAcela *ClubTrump.*
> 
> A new Trump Station would need an expanded Amtrak presents.
Click to expand...

Fixed!


----------



## Carolina Special

I have no particular notion of what the Donald might do on Amtrak. I have never been a fan of his, but I do respect his marketing skills. Over on YouTube I count at least five different videos for the "Trump Train", so it would appear he's trying to attract the train lovers' vote.


----------



## Bob Dylan

The Trump Train is Leaving the Station! All Aboard!! ( check your Brain before boarding!)


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Hate to bring this old post back, but here is some recent news on trains and Trump.

http://time.com/4247162/donald-trump-trains-infrastructure/


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Trump may be saying things we like to hear but with a man who takes both sides of so many issues it's virtually impossible to know what he really means. Sometimes Trumps says whatever he thinks we want to hear and other times he just blurts out whatever pops into his head, but he never bothers to explain how he came to his conclusions or how he would accomplish his goals or why he changed his mind or why the establishment would go along with it. Even if Trump means every word of his support for Amtrak I still would never be willing to support a fascist bully in exchange for improved passenger rail. In fact it's kind of insulting to even have to say that. If a moderator is considering removing or hiding my post because it has crossed some sort of line of decency or decorum I would implore that person to watch any of the recent debates featuring Trump and tell me I'm exaggerating or misrepresenting anything I have said in the slightest. We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Devil's Advocate said:


> ... and other times he just blurts out whatever pops into his head,...


I think that is what draws so many people to Trump. He doesn't bother to have every word that comes out of this mouth, run thru focus groups and opinion polls.


----------



## VentureForth

I'd rather Trump be President of Amtrak than President of the United States.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I agree with DA but disagree with my friend VentureForth about the Donald and Amtrak, wouldn't want him within a mile of ANY Government Program or Agency! YMMV


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and other times he just blurts out whatever pops into his head,...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is what draws so many people to Trump. He doesn't bother to have every word that comes out of this mouth, run thru focus groups and opinion polls.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to really think about it at all. If it unravels previous claims or contradicts his previous positions or simply makes no sense at all he just runs with it. Trump is Nixon's Southern strategy remade for the anti-knowledge Twitter era. His appeal is that he only speaks to our most basic emotions and never asks us to think beyond third grade logic.


----------



## neroden

Trump may be similar to Nixon, but I see him as much, much, much more like Reagan.

Reagan had the same thing going on -- absolute gibberish came out of his mouth; he contradicted himself routinely; he said things which were really obviously untrue (like "I was there at the liberation of the concentration camps"). It turns out he had Alzheimer's.

None of it affected his popularity. This is why he was called the "Teflon President". No matter what he did, none of it stuck. Reagan won by landslides. Twice.

The same thing is happening with Trump; he has Teflon. Thankfully the population of today has much less lead poisoning than the population of the 1980s. Trump will not win by landslides. He may still win, however.

One of the biggest problems with Reagan was that his "hands off, brain off" approach meant that many parts of the government were run by a bunch of very shady, self-interested characters with their own personal agendas who attached themselves to him. Trump would have the same type of characters angling to attach themselves to him.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Neroden: Telling it like it is!


----------



## Manny T

My guess is Pres. Trump will sell off the profitable pieces of Amtrak to private companies and ditch the rest. I think they did this in the UK. I remember riding Virgin Rail in the UK--Branson attaches the name Virgin to everything he buys instead of his own name, don't ask me why, he should take lessons from Trump--and sitting in the lovely dining car eating lunch while the train experienced a two hour delay. Checking some online sources I find Virgin Rail was know for a lack of punctuality. I can attest to that.


----------



## nti1094

Didn't the metroliner have a big part in killing the Trump Shuttle back in the 80's... I would think he might hold a grudge of some sort against Amtrak still.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Devil's Advocate said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and other times he just blurts out whatever pops into his head,...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is what draws so many people to Trump. He doesn't bother to have every word that comes out of this mouth, run thru focus groups and opinion polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't seem to really think about it at all. If it unravels previous claims or contradicts his previous positions or simply makes no sense at all he just runs with it. Trump is Nixon's Southern strategy remade for the anti-knowledge Twitter era. His appeal is that he only speaks to our most basic emotions and never asks us to think beyond third grade logic.
Click to expand...

So, you're contrasting this to all the other candidates who only speak the truth, and if elected, will quickly fulfill every campaign promise made?

My only worry, is that someone will introduce yet another bill killing Obamacare, with an obscure amendment attached to it, killing Amtrak too.


----------



## zepherdude

I would give up Amtrak to keep Trump from being POTUS, if I had to. It is not worth the trouble he will cause America.


----------



## Ziv

Reagan stated repeatedly that he saved the film of the concentration camp made by other photographers, and he mentioned the film to his son and to other people repeatedly. He made no claim that he had filmed it, only that it was important documentation of horrible crimes.

As far as I can tell this was a reporters mistaken report of Reagan claiming he had filmed it, but it doesn't look like Reagan made any such claim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/ron-reagan-my-dad-showed_b_255609.html



neroden said:


> Trump may be similar to Nixon, but I see him as much, much, much more like Reagan.
> 
> Reagan had the same thing going on -- absolute gibberish came out of his mouth; he contradicted himself routinely; he said things which were really obviously untrue (like "I was there at the liberation of the concentration camps"). It turns out he had Alzheimer's.
> 
> None of it affected his popularity. This is why he was called the "Teflon President". No matter what he did, none of it stuck. Reagan won by landslides. Twice.
> 
> The same thing is happening with Trump; he has Teflon. Thankfully the population of today has much less lead poisoning than the population of the 1980s. Trump will not win by landslides. He may still win, however.
> 
> One of the biggest problems with Reagan was that his "hands off, brain off" approach meant that many parts of the government were run by a bunch of very shady, self-interested characters with their own personal agendas who attached themselves to him. Trump would have the same type of characters angling to attach themselves to him.


----------



## Alex M.

Lest we forget, Donald Trump got his start as a real estate investor by acquiring properties from the bankrupt Penn Central estate. One was a rail yard on the west side of Manhatten that was developed for convention center use, I believe, as well as if I recall, the Commodore Hotel. One ray of hope is his promise to but bright and qualified people in his administration. After 8 years of lethargic management, Amtrak could sure benefit from energetic and proactive leadership.


----------



## Chey

Alex M. said:


> Lest we forget, Donald Trump got his start as a real estate investor by acquiring properties from the bankrupt Penn Central estate. One was a rail yard on the west side of Manhatten that was developed for convention center use, I believe, as well as if I recall, the Commodore Hotel. One ray of hope is his promise to but bright and qualified people in his administration. After 8 years of lethargic management, Amtrak could sure benefit from energetic and proactive leadership.


Considering he contradicts himself about every 5 minutes I'm not sure what his promises are worth


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> So, you're contrasting this to all the other candidates who only speak the truth, and if elected, will quickly fulfill every campaign promise made? My only worry, is that someone will introduce yet another bill killing Obamacare, with an obscure amendment attached to it, killing Amtrak too.


It sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth and then attacking your own straw man with false equivalency. All politicians lie, just like every human lies, but not every lie is equally harmful or malicious.



zepherdude said:


> I would give up Amtrak to keep Trump from being POTUS, if I had to. It is not worth the trouble he will cause America.


Same here, in fact I would accept losing _all_ passenger rail in the _entire_ country if it meant we avoided electing a dangerous extremist like Trump. Rebuilding America's passenger rail services from scratch would be extremely difficult, and yet still much easier than recovering from codified fascism.



Alex M. said:


> One ray of hope is his promise to but bright and qualified people in his administration. After 8 years of lethargic management, Amtrak could sure benefit from energetic and proactive leadership.


I'm sure they'd be extremely bright and qualified at identifying, extracting, and privatizing government assets. Just like his good buddy Vladimir Putin.


----------



## neroden

Well, other examples of the Reagan maladministration include "ketchup is a vegetable", "trees cause pollution", "we begin bombing in five minutes", the infamous "magic asterisks" in the budget, "defense spending doesn't count" when presenting a so-called "balanced" budget, Star Wars (officially the "strategic defense initiative") -- which consisted of a bunch of stuff which had already been demonstrated to be totally ineffective -- .... and this is off the top of my head.

Oh, and if you want morally questionable stuff, there's his Bitburg visit to honor the SS dead, and the Philadelphia MS speech where he was deliberately courting the KKK vote.

There's also the blatant lies which were also slanders like the "welfare queen with 5 Cadillacs" stuff which he or Peggy Noonan just made up.

None of it stuck politically. Teflon.

Iran-Contra only came out after his second election (the one where he lied -- when he claimed he wouldn't raise taxes), but that didn't seem to prevent his VP from getting elected. Still Teflon.

This is when I became totally cynical about the American people. Only the recent discovery that most of the US electorate was quite seriously lead-poisoned at the time has made me more hopeful.


----------



## jis

Not to mention overtly supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa till the last possible moment.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Never mind, those that don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it!


----------



## jis

This is getting way beyond any reasonable discussion of Amtrak, but the world's worst nightmare is the possibility of a United States gone rogue and behaving more like North Korea than like a civilized nation. The bloviation of several people who call themselves Presidential candidates could mislead someone into believing that as a distinct possibility.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> This is getting way beyond any reasonable discussion of Amtrak, but the world's worst nightmare is the possibility of a United States gone rogue and behaving more like North Korea than like a civilized nation.


Absolutely. George W. Bush (especially the invasion of Iraq, and talking about a "crusade") was already causing many nations to worry about a "rogue US". At least North Korea stays within its own borders and looks inward. I think the world is most specifically afraid of the US acting like ISIS. Some of the extremist right-wing preachers make that seem much more plausible than it should seem. And our political mess is not helping that image.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

I look for Amtrak to prosper and thrive under President Trump as he realizes America's infrastructure, including passenger rail, is in the toilet.


----------



## inspiration100

I see no reason to believe trump would doom Amtrak. To be honest, I expect very little will change regardless of who becomes President. So far,]we have some conjecture, a couple quotes, and political opinions. Here's mine: I would certainly consider him for my vote.


----------



## neroden

Well, to plug my own favorite candidate, I hope y'all would consider Bernie. He was good for Amtrak in Vermont, anyway!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

inspiration100 said:


> I see no reason to believe trump would doom Amtrak. To be honest, I expect very little will change regardless of who becomes President. So far,]we have some conjecture, a couple quotes, and political opinions. Here's mine: I would certainly consider him for my vote.


Can you elaborate on what it is about Trump that specifically appeals to you? Trump himself has said very little about what any of his actual policies would look like or how he would go about funding and implementing them. Indeed he has routinely declined to explain much of anything even when asked directly. US presidential power is mostly focused outward toward external issues and developments. For domestic needs and goals Congress continues to hold most of the power. Which means finding a way to work with Congress remains a stubborn and unavoidable necessity. It's hard to imagine Trump spending substantial political capitol to save Amtrak from a hostile Congress. Then again Trump hasn't shown any willingness to compromise or coordinate his goals at anytime with anyone. In fact he seems bound and determined to publicly insult and/or threaten nearly everyone he'll eventually have to work with. Which may mean that the coordination and compromise stages may simply never happen and his entire term could end up in some sort of lame duck limbo.


----------



## mlhughes0522

Amtrak fans I would put ur support behind Ted Cruz!


----------



## Ryan

Because?


----------



## jis

This thread should probably move to Random Discussion. Just IMHO of course


----------



## A Voice

mlhughes0522 said:


> Amtrak fans I would put ur support behind Ted Cruz!


After Saturday, I have some hope that Cruz might yet pull out the nomination. But either he or Trump should have no trouble beating either of the Democrats in the general election, which is were any influence on Amtrak comes into play.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Two more possibilities: (1) Michael Bloomberg decides to run, and/or (2) Trump doesn't get enough delegates and the GOP puts in Paul Ryan to save them.

Michael Bloomberg is discussed earlier in this thread (and I thank those of you who gave the thoughtful replies to my question on how he would affect Amtrak).

But what do you think of Paul Ryan and his views of Amtrak and passenger rail in general? I admit to not knowing a whole lot about him and would welcome insights from those here.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Somehow I think there are bigger issues than Amtrak to consider when voting. And I agree with Jis that should be be in Random Discussions, or even closed since we're not supposed to talking politics on AU.


----------



## neroden

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Two more possibilities: (1) Michael Bloomberg decides to run, and/or (2) Trump doesn't get enough delegates and the GOP puts in Paul Ryan to save them.
> 
> Michael Bloomberg is discussed earlier in this thread (and I thank those of you who gave the thoughtful replies to my question on how he would affect Amtrak).
> 
> But what do you think of Paul Ryan and his views of Amtrak and passenger rail in general? I admit to not knowing a whole lot about him and would welcome insights from those here.


Paul Ryan actually DOES have a VERY clear record which shows that he would attempt to destroy Amtrak and passenger rail entirely.

I don't think passenger rail is even on the radar of most of the actual candidates.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two more possibilities: (1) Michael Bloomberg decides to run, and/or (2) Trump doesn't get enough delegates and the GOP puts in Paul Ryan to save them.
> 
> Michael Bloomberg is discussed earlier in this thread (and I thank those of you who gave the thoughtful replies to my question on how he would affect Amtrak).
> 
> But what do you think of Paul Ryan and his views of Amtrak and passenger rail in general? I admit to not knowing a whole lot about him and would welcome insights from those here.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Ryan actually DOES have a VERY clear record which shows that he would attempt to destroy Amtrak and passenger rail entirely.
> 
> I don't think passenger rail is even on the radar of most of the actual candidates.
Click to expand...

No, but for candidates who are trying to come across as anti spending, zeroing out all non NEC Amtrak funds would make an easy target in appearing to be fulfilling their promise.

And they wouldn't risk much backlash as most people probably wouldn't even notice any difference.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Re Ted Cruz,( aka "Lyin'Ted, Joe McCarthy II") one of my Texas Senators: look up his record as a Senator and compare it with the Spin and BS ( they all do it!)he's putting out now and make up your own mind.

My own opinion, based on his record and the Hate he spews, is "ABC" ( Anyone but Cruz!)but YMMV!

As they say in Chicago: "Pick your Horse and Vote Early and Vote Often!"


----------



## SP&S

I won't get in to politics here, and am amazed and happy that the political talk here has remained civil, but the President - be it Trump, Bernie, or the reincarnation of Harold Stassen - is not the most important factor in Amtrak's future. Congress holds much more direct power than the Pres ever will. Notice how (rightly or wrongly depending upon your viewpoint) Congress has stymied much of Obama's initiatives. If you care about the future of Amtrak, check out your candidates for the House and Senate and what their feelings toward Amtrak are. That's where the power is.


----------



## HenryK

Amazingly, I have NO quarrel with any of the details in Devil's Advocate's post! (We do agree, methinks, on more than we disagree with.)

By the way, I always agree with Bob Dylan although I have no idea what he sings.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks Henry! My Songbook has something for everyone, my Political Views don't!


----------



## I always rode the Southern

HenryK said:


> Amazingly, I have NO quarrel with any of the details in Devil's Advocate's post! (We do agree, methinks, on more than we disagree with.)
> 
> By the way, I always agree with Bob Dylan although I have no idea what he sings.





Bob Dylan said:


> Thanks Henry! My Songbook has something for everyone, my Political Views don't!


Henry, its not what he sings,but what he composes in the songbook!!


----------



## Bob Dylan

"The Last Waltz!"

To paraphrase President Kennedy: there hadn't been such a collection of talent and intellect gathered together since Thomas Jefferson dined alone!


----------



## Eric308

Bob Dylan said:


> "The Last Waltz!"
> 
> To paraphrase President Kennedy: there hadn't been such a collection of talent and intellect gathered together since Thomas Jefferson dined alone!


Hey Bob Dylan....did you ever see your namesake and/or The Band live? I saw Levon Helm and John Prine at Carnegie Hall in the fall of 1980. What a show...I tell you about Woodstock some other time.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yep, have had the pleasure of hearing/seeing most of the Musical Legends from Hank to Beyonce during my 70+ years on this tiny granite planet!

The Band was made up of fantastic musicians, we won't see their likes again!

As for Dylan, a couple of his shows were fantastic,( Rolling Thunder Review was great!) lots sucked! Best live Song I heard him do was "It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It takes a Train to Cry" in Red Rocks, Colorado!

Woodstock I missed but I saw the Beatles in Atlanta ( you couldn't hear! LOL) and Jimi Hendrix in New York!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Eric308 said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Last Waltz!"
> 
> To paraphrase President Kennedy: there hadn't been such a collection of talent and intellect gathered together since Thomas Jefferson dined alone!
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Bob Dylan....did you ever see your namesake and/or The Band live? I saw Levon Helm and John Prine at Carnegie Hall in the fall of 1980. What a show...I tell you about Woodstock some other time.
Click to expand...

My husband went to Woodstock. It wasn't pre-planned. He said a friend picked him up and said, hey, let's go....


----------



## NorthShore

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting way beyond any reasonable discussion of Amtrak, but the world's worst nightmare is the possibility of a United States gone rogue and behaving more like North Korea than like a civilized nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. George W. Bush (especially the invasion of Iraq, and talking about a "crusade") was already causing many nations to worry about a "rogue US". At least North Korea stays within its own borders and looks inward. I think the world is most specifically afraid of the US acting like ISIS. Some of the extremist right-wing preachers make that seem much more plausible than it should seem. And our political mess is not helping that image.
Click to expand...

...and the entire world lived in fear.....over the possible expansion of Amtrak!


----------



## FriskyFL

Will the SL's current route closest to the border around El Paso be disrupted by the Wall?


----------



## HARHBG

How much "influence" do you think Donald Trump had in getting the ATLANTIC CITY EXPRESS up and running in 1989??

As a Businessman first, I'd imagine Mr. Trump would look at Amtrak in the same light as any other business only Amtrak really isn't any other business.

No other business can run a deficit for 40+ years straight and still be around. Just hard, cold fact.

That Amtrak has an essential role in the balance of transportation modes in the US should be clear to anyone with more than 2 active brain cells, but desperately needs to be brought into the 21st Century.

Several AU posts point out one inescapable FACT. Congress, specifically, the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is where the real attention should be focused. Google it !! Get the list of members and start writing !!! PAPER LETTERS. An email is too easy to ignore.

A paper, hand written letter speaks loudly, LOUDLY, *LOUDLY !!*, _because_ it communicates that someone has actually taken the time to sit down and write it, not push a button to send a "form" letter.

I write 2 letters a week to the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and I do get responses, mostly a "form" type letter, but I've also received a number of letters that were clearly composed, written and specifically addressed the subject of the letter I had sent.

I keep each letter to one topic,...... funding..... or long range infrastructure repair, etc. and as brief as possible. (Don't want to overwhelm those "BUSY" minds).

The FAST Act has been passed, but it needs funding. That's a HUGE Victory for Amtrak but Amtrak has to compete with all the others who are controlled by this committee. Believe me, the pipeline people have their lobbyists, the airline people have their lobbyists and on and on. Amtrak supporters have NAPR and ??? ....YOU.

YOU want Amtrak to move into the 21st Century, right? Then get off your duffs and contribute something with substance. If you can sit around typing posts all day on AU, then you certainly can research who your particular State or Commonwealth Senator is on the Transportation Committee and write.

Getting started: .. ® Jeff Denham, Calif.; Chairman. ... (D) Michael E. Capuano, Mass.; Ranking Member.


----------



## Bob Dylan

HARHBG: Excellent post! Unfortunately my Senators and most of the Congressional Delegation here in Texas are puppets of the T-Party Zealots that have taken over the Republican Party here in Deep Red Texas! Thus they vote against most Budgets items that benefit Society and in tbe case of one Senator shut the Government down over small, trivial matters!

Oh how we miss Kay Bailey Hutchison!


----------



## neroden

The great advantage of the FAST Act is that Amtrak is now being considered by the *correct committee*, the same one which pays attention to public transportation. Previously Amtrak considerations were stuck in a committee whose responsibilities were *entirely* freight and commodities oriented, which really did not help its chances.


----------



## jis

HARHBG said:


> How much "influence" do you think Donald Trump had in getting the ATLANTIC CITY EXPRESS up and running in 1989??


Did he do anything? Nothing that I am aware of. It was mostly the Atlantic City Development Authority (or whatever they call themselves) that were all for it and worked hard to make it happen. Once it started most hotels, including Trump's as far as I recall, were reluctant to run shuttles to/from the train station for the longest time. They were all more worried about their parking lot losses and New York - Atlantic City bus contract issues. The fact that the train took more time than a bus from New York via Garden State Parkway did not help matters much either. Finally Amtrak folded that service, and since then given NJ Transit's excellent stewardship, ridership has been in general going down.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

FriskyFL said:


> Will the SL's current route closest to the border around El Paso be disrupted by the Wall?


That section should already be listed as one of the Scenic Areas on Amtrak.com.

From your train window you can look across the river to Mexico and see why they are desperate to escape. Then you see the Rio Grande -- careful, if you try to cross it you could get your socks wet. On this side is a chain link fence, with Border Patrol cars parked every two or three blocks. They have a dirt road to move back n forth along the fence. Then uphill a bit a local street, Paisano Drive, four lanes wide, is itself lined with concrete Jersey barriers. I recall roadsigns warning drivers to look out for, uh, pedestrians, like cattle crossing signs, but not lately. Part of the way is a concrete lined irrigation canal, its sloping sides sometimes filled with water, but usually not much. Up a gravelly slope to another level, another fence, and train tracks (two tracks on two levels, iirc.) A smaller fence lines the Interstate 10 divided highway. Above that, more gravelly slope of cactus and assorted thorned, spiny, spiked, and scratchy desert plants.

I'm not sure where they'd squeeze in the Wall, even if Mexico agrees to pay for it.

Of course, the facts have a well-known liberal bias: Illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen greatly in recent years. Don't think that's all Obama's fault, LOL, it's more the job-starved economy since Bush's Recession kicked off in 2008.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

HARHBG said:


> No other business can run a deficit for 40+ years straight and still be around. Just hard, cold fact.


Alex, what is the USPS?

The "other" business that just Congress loves to mess around.


----------



## tricia

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> HARHBG said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other business can run a deficit for 40+ years straight and still be around. Just hard, cold fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Alex, what is the USPS?
> 
> The "other" business that just Congress loves to mess around.
Click to expand...

The USPS is a public service, not a "business." And in a more rational world, Amtrak too would be funded as appropriate for a public service.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

tricia said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HARHBG said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other business can run a deficit for 40+ years straight and still be around. Just hard, cold fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Alex, what is the USPS?
> 
> The "other" business that just Congress loves to mess around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USPS is a public service, not a "business." And in a more rational world, Amtrak too would be funded as appropriate for a public service.
Click to expand...

I thought Nixon made the USPS independent?


----------



## PerRock

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> tricia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HARHBG said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other business can run a deficit for 40+ years straight and still be around. Just hard, cold fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Alex, what is the USPS?
> 
> The "other" business that just Congress loves to mess around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USPS is a public service, not a "business." And in a more rational world, Amtrak too would be funded as appropriate for a public service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Nixon made the USPS independent?
Click to expand...

The USPS is a "independent agency of the United States federal government." And (for the most part) doesn't receive tax-payer funding.
peter


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> Of course, the facts have a well-known liberal bias: Illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen greatly in recent years.


It's actually *reversed* -- the net flow is *from* the US *to* Mexico, and has been for several years.
Mexico, of course, has universal health care now. Much of Mexico is doing quite well, though the border areas are trashed by the drug war (also the fault of the US; in Mexico even the right-wingers are now asking the US to legalize drugs so as to suppress the gangs' profits).


----------



## inspiration100

Devil's Advocate said:


> inspiration100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason to believe trump would doom Amtrak. To be honest, I expect very little will change regardless of who becomes President. So far,]we have some conjecture, a couple quotes, and political opinions. Here's mine: I would certainly consider him for my vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on what it is about Trump that specifically appeals to you? Trump himself has said very little about what any of his actual policies would look like or how he would go about funding and implementing them. Indeed he has routinely declined to explain much of anything even when asked directly. US presidential power is mostly focused outward toward external issues and developments. For domestic needs and goals Congress continues to hold most of the power. Which means finding a way to work with Congress remains a stubborn and unavoidable necessity. It's hard to imagine Trump spending substantial political capitol to save Amtrak from a hostile Congress. Then again Trump hasn't shown any willingness to compromise or coordinate his goals at anytime with anyone. In fact he seems bound and determined to publicly insult and/or threaten nearly everyone he'll eventually have to work with. Which may mean that the coordination and compromise stages may simply never happen and his entire term could end up in some sort of lame duck limbo.
Click to expand...

Full disclosure: Trump was not my preferred choice for president, but my preferred choice has dropped out. What appeals to me about Trump is the fact he is bringing up issues that nobody else would touch until he entered the race. Politicians were too scared about the "backlash" they would receive or campaign funding that would go out the window if they brought issues up. Democrats think he's a joke, but he's a master of dominating the media. In my view, the media is very biased on both sides and it's hard to believe anything you read anymore. A couple of the most popular news sources are Fox News and Huffington Post. These are jokes. Trump has played the media very well and I believe a lot of it is intentional for free publicity. He's a good businessman. I also think Trump will have more success than the current president in working with Congress (albeit it's controlled by Republicans). Most Democrats are most certainly more favorable for Amtrak, but that is not the only issue I follow for my voting. What I don't like about Trump are all the insults he throws out. I want someone who is more level-headed on that front. These are just my views. I completely understand why Amtrak supporters are concerned of Repulbican candidates so I'm not offended at all. I don't think any presidential candidate will change how Amtrak operates.


----------



## Thirdrail7

_Let the games begin!_

_Proposal shifts air traffic control outside federal government, cuts funding for transit and Amtrak_

_https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/proposal-shifts-air-traffic-control-outside-federal-government-cuts-funding-for-transit-and-amtrak/2017/03/15/db066ee2-099e-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.85e2ef3c5bde_



> The plan would end federal support for Amtrak’s long-distance train service, which budget documents said “incur the vast majority of Amtrak’s operating losses. This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its state-supported and Northeast Corridor train services.”The core of the Northeast Corridor stretches from Washington to Boston, though that term also encompasses several other offshoots.
> 
> The budget would also cut nearly a half-billion dollars from one of the most popular federal transportation programs, known as TIGER grants. The department has wide discretion in awarding the competitive grants, which have funded highway improvements in South Dakota and a rail station in Rhode Island, among dozens of other projects.


----------



## Eric S

Surprise, surprise. The President's budget proposes significant cuts to Amtrak and to transit. Certainly at this point it's just a proposal and presidential budget proposals are typically ignored in part or in total by Congress, but it does make known the Administration's general goals with regards to transportation/infrastructure spending.


----------



## Palmetto

I do not think any of us should be surprised at this. On a side note, I don't recall Trump ever uttering the word "Amtrak". "Railroads", yes, ""High speed rail", yes, but Amtrak? Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## JoeBas

Palmetto said:


> I do not think any of us should be surprised at this. On a side note, I don't recall Trump ever uttering the word "Amtrak". "Railroads", yes, ""High speed rail", yes, but Amtrak? Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## jis

So, what about those that have been telling us that there will be that elusive trillion dollar salvation of infrastructure including passenger rail? What are your thoughts?


----------



## A Voice

You would not ordinarily expect a major, new infrastructure bill (plan) to be part of a regular annual budget proposal. This administration is just getting started; If we haven't seen concrete progress on major campaign promises within two or three _years _(but presumably sooner), then it would be a real concern.

While it is disappointing to see 'business as usual' regarding annual Amtrak funding proposals, we all know the long-distance services aren't really the big financial drain they're painted as - that's the Northeast Corridor's capital requirements. The semi-good news is we can also expect a 'business as usual' budget result for Amtrak; In other words, a wholly inadequate budget for passenger rail which merely props up the status quo for another year. Infrastructure spending does have the potential to change that, but you cannot spend your way out of a continuing operating subsidy.

It is also doubtful the actual Amtrak budget number was authored by Trump personally. No president can be an expert on everything or involved in minor details (they'd never get any work done), and the combined myths of a profitable Northeast Corridor and long-distance trains which lose hundreds of dollars per passenger have been spread for so long they make sense (on the surface) to most people.


----------



## edjbox

I could see some of the states and localities getting more involved in helping to fund the LD routes, kind of like what's happened with the SW Chief


----------



## MikefromCrete

Folks, Trump's secretary of transportation came direct from the American Heritage Foundation, a group that has been anti-Amtrak for decades. What did you think was going to happen? All this talk of trillions of dollars for infrastructure is just that, talk. The Republicans have no stomach for big money federal building programs. Time to get in contact with your congressmen and senators --- and don't call them "critters" when you talk with them and their staff -- and express your ire at this stupid proposal. The states are not interested in supporting LD trains. What happens when New York and Illinois say they'll throw a few bucks at the LSL and Ohio and Indiana say "no thanks." Do you think the repressive anti-government Republican administration of Kansas wants to throw money at the SWC? I think not! Make your voices heard or the LD trains will be going away. Don't think that Trump even knows what Amtrak is. There's going to be a lot much to moan and groan about in the next few years other than the quality of Amtrak food.


----------



## Eric S

Yep, this is pretty much the Heritage budget, as far as transportation at least, that was rumored not that long ago. Cut Amtrak (in this case, specifically funds for long distance trains) and eliminate federal funds for transit expansion.


----------



## CAMISSY55

Fly-over states (overwhelmingly poor, rural, and predominantly Red States) are not likely going to be able (or willing) to cover the funding of LD trains. I take the CONO to CHI from rural Mississippi simply to get to connect to other LD trains. I can not see MS coughing up dollars to fund the CONO. Hell, our state preacher in chief.... I mean governor, wouldn't even allow ACA Medicaid expansion!


----------



## Bob Dylan

As usual the Presidents Budget will be DOA in Congress!

This allows the Hogs,er Peoples Representatives to feed at the trough and follow the orders of their owners, the Lobbyists that actually run Washington!

I agree with those that think that as always, Amtrak will get just enough to muddle through by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. YMMV


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

edjbox said:


> I could see some of the states and localities getting more involved in helping to fund the LD routes, kind of like what's happened with the SW Chief





MikefromCrete said:


> The states are not interested in supporting LD trains. What happens when New York and Illinois say they'll throw a few bucks at the LSL and Ohio and Indiana say "no thanks." Do you think the repressive anti-government Republican administration of Kansas wants to throw money at the SWC? I think not!


I think it depends on how dependent the state is on Amtrak for transportation needs. If these rinky dink states that you all say can't lose their Amtrak service really think that way you might have a chance there. If Amtrak can get a few LD routes off their payroll without losing the trains we're all better off.



Eric S said:


> Yep, this is pretty much the Heritage budget, as far as transportation at least, that was rumored not that long ago. Cut Amtrak (in this case, specifically funds for long distance trains) and eliminate federal funds for transit expansion.


I'm guessing this isn't new but has been proposed for decades.

Who knows, maybe Trump will proposed new railroad expansion (or at least upgrades of existing tracks for higher speeds)? If he's really serious about comparing our trains to Europe's or Asia's trains maybe we'll get a transportation system better than Amtrak. That $1 Trillion has to go somewhere.


----------



## John Bobinyec

Bob Dylan said:


> As usual the Presidents Budget will be DOA in Congress!


I agree. As I understand it, he wants to keep the Northeast Corridor and nothing else besides the state supported corridors. I just don't think the rest of the country is going to want to pay for the Northeast Corridor. If we can't have a national train system, then let the states and cities from DC to Boston pay for the NEC.

jb


----------



## Skyline

We cannot let the Republicans in Congress, or Trump, play a divide-and-conquer game. That is precisely what this LD vs. NE Corridor proposal will do if they get their way.

All proponents of passenger rail travel must not be divided. We must unite in opposition (dare I use the word RESIST?) to this or any similar budget proposal. Trust in this: The budget hawks and Trump may not have the NE Corridor in the crosshairs this year, but once they dispense of most LD trains the NE Corridor will be next.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

John Bobinyec said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual the Presidents Budget will be DOA in Congress!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. As I understand it, he wants to keep the Northeast Corridor and nothing else besides the state supported corridors. I just don't think the rest of the country is going to want to pay for the Northeast Corridor. If we can't have a national train system, then let the states and cities from DC to Boston pay for the NEC.
> 
> jb
Click to expand...

And those in the NEC don't want to pay for LD routes (or at least some of them). Like it or not, most people don't want to pay their tax money for things they won't use and either you serve "everyone", pick and choose, or serve no one. Anyone here who believes Amtrak serves everyone now is kidding themselves.


----------



## JoeBas

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Who knows, maybe Trump will proposed new railroad expansion (or at least upgrades of existing tracks for higher speeds)? If he's really serious about comparing our trains to Europe's or Asia's trains maybe we'll get a transportation system better than Amtrak. That $1 Trillion has to go somewhere.


And maybe unicorns and rainbows will fly ahead of these trains, heralding their approach.

Or maybe like Healthcare..

"TRUST us, when we get done destroying what we have, we'll make something shiny and new, that's twice as better at half the cost! Bigly!!!"


----------



## Chey

John Bobinyec said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual the Presidents Budget will be DOA in Congress!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. As I understand it, he wants to keep the Northeast Corridor and nothing else besides the state supported corridors. I just don't think the rest of the country is going to want to pay for the Northeast Corridor. If we can't have a national train system, then let the states and cities from DC to Boston pay for the NEC.
> 
> jb
Click to expand...

Amen to that


----------



## keelhauled

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> And those in the NEC don't want to pay for LD routes (or at least some of them). Like it or not, most people don't want to pay their tax money for things they won't use and either you serve "everyone", pick and choose, or serve no one. Anyone here who believes Amtrak serves everyone now is kidding themselves.


Oh for gods sake. Part of living in a society is you contribute to society in general, you don't get to pick and choose what you want to support. I live inland, but my some of my tax money goes to the Coast Guard anyway. I don't watch TV, but some of my taxes go to PBS. Just because you don't see the value of some aspect of publicly funded works doesn't mean the value isn't there.


----------



## jis

Time to start calling and emailing and writing letters:

http://cqrcengage.com/narp/app/make-a-call?4&engagementId=315453


----------



## Tennessee Traveler

Here is my realistic view of Trump's budget and everything else: STUCK IN THE MUD!

By the way, this Nashvillian WAS NOT at the Trump "rally" last night and did everything I could to avoid any news coverage of the visit.


----------



## acelafan

jis said:


> Time to start calling and emailing and writing letters:
> 
> http://cqrcengage.com/narp/app/make-a-call?4&engagementId=315453


Called all 3 over lunch. Spoke to 2 people and left a voicemail message for one (David Perdue).


----------



## pennyk

jis said:


> Time to start calling and emailing and writing letters:
> 
> http://cqrcengage.com/narp/app/make-a-call?4&engagementId=315453


I called all 3 and spoke to 2 also (Nelson's and Murphpy's offices) and left message for one (Rubio).


----------



## Maglev

I also called all three, and spoke with staff at two and left a message at one.


----------



## CHamilton

NARP's call to action.



> Trump Administration’s First Budget Calls for End to National Network Trains. Join NARP in Saying: NATIONAL or NOTHING! http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d2fac86b82f8768a62d03332f&id=87046f68a2&e=427ef5952e


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

John Bobinyec said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual the Presidents Budget will be DOA in Congress!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. As I understand it, he wants to keep the Northeast Corridor and nothing else besides the state supported corridors. I just don't think the rest of the country is going to want to pay for the Northeast Corridor. If we can't have a national train system, then let the states and cities from DC to Boston pay for the NEC.
> 
> jb
Click to expand...

Well he's not "keeping" the state supported, the states are.


----------



## bpb1970

I have 70K AGR points I was saving for a trip on the SWC in summer of 2018. I'm wondering if I should bump that date up. Do these long distance trains lose that much money?


----------



## jis

pennyk said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to start calling and emailing and writing letters:
> 
> http://cqrcengage.com/narp/app/make-a-call?4&engagementId=315453
> 
> 
> 
> I called all 3 and spoke to 2 also (Nelson's and Murphpy's offices) and left message for one (Rubio).
Click to expand...

BTW, I am planning to meet Nelson and Murphy during NARP's day on the Hill. I am still debating whether there is any point meeting Posey. A few of will be meeting Rubio, if we can find him, too.


----------



## pennyk

jis said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to start calling and emailing and writing letters:
> 
> http://cqrcengage.com/narp/app/make-a-call?4&engagementId=315453
> 
> 
> 
> I called all 3 and spoke to 2 also (Nelson's and Murphpy's offices) and left message for one (Rubio).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, I am planning to meet Nelson and Murphy during NARP's day on the Hill. I am still debating whether there is any point meeting Posey. A few of will be meeting Rubio, if we can find him, too.
Click to expand...

Thanks!!!


----------



## Maglev

The concept I try to get across is that by taking a train, one can see that America IS GREAT. It doesn't need to be made great again. On my recent cross-country train trip, I saw countless grain and stack trains, auto racks and manifest freights, and quite a few coal and oil trains. America IS GREAT! I traveled on trains full of people of all walks of life, and I was free to interact with them. It is our diversity that makes us strong.


----------



## Groundpounder

I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


----------



## amtkstn

Very few passenger travel the full length of the a long distance route. The long distance trains feed traffic into the short haul and NEC trains.


----------



## Eric S

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


You're right, trains don't make a whole lot of sense for NYP-LAX travel. But they do for NYP-SYR, and ROC-CLE, and TOL-CHI, and CHI-KCY, etc, etc. Now, it's also true that a better case can be made for the eastern long distance trains than the western long distance trains. But, politics being what it is, it's not hard to imagine that if/when all long distance serve is defunded (at least at the federal level), that it will be rather difficult to get much federal funding (whether capital funds or otherwise) for state corridors.

Ultimately, though, the problem with your view is that you're looking at trains with an endpoint only mentality. Trains don't just serve their origin and destination, but also all the enroute points in between.


----------



## JoeBas

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


a) 9/12/01

b) Some people are afraid to fly

c) Some people are medically unable to fly

d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.

e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.


----------



## John Bobinyec

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


If you're going from NYC to LAX maybe you're right. But Amtrak goes to something like 500 stations. There are a lot of intermediate trips being made.

I'll let our experts address this.

jb


----------



## Lonestar648

Any transportation that is a public service needs subsidies. Look at the bail outs Congress paid the airlines after 9/11, the cost of the FAA, etc. With another 9/11 event, Amtrak needs to be better equipped to handle the extra flow of passengers to maintain as normal as possible the business flow (national security). Look at all the intermediate stations that Amtrak serves that gives these rural communities access to traveling nationwide without driving. Our interstate system is crumbling and isn't capable of handling the flow of vehicles if everyone drove. Bottom line, this country needs a good rail system, a good interstate system, and a good airline system. All three infrastructures are necessary for the future of our country.


----------



## JoeBas

Yup. "Who needs the lymphatic system! We've got Arteries and Veins, and that should be enough, goddammit!"


----------



## A Voice

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


There is an old saying that anti-Amtrak politicians (and think-tanks, etc.) love to spout: "Trains only make sense in short and medium distance corridors where they can compete with airplanes". There is lacking solid research or studies to support that claim, but regardless, they miss the point that short and medium distance travel is exactly the way the long-distance trains are being used. The real market for the Southwest Chief and other long hauls is to and from intermediate points, many of them indeed 300 to 500 miles distant (similar to several regional corridors).

You don't see the point, primarily, because New York to Los Angeles is not really a market in which Amtrak is competing. As for funding unprofitable routes, if profit is the objective, then all passenger rail nationwide would be shut down - intercity, commuter, and light rail. There are *no* truly profitable routes - *period*. Not even Acela is profitable on a fully allocated cost basis; In fact, the so-called "profitable" Northeast Corridor costs more federal tax dollars than the rest of the system combined.


----------



## tommylicious

(via progressiverailroading.com): http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-ends-funding-of-Amtrak-long-distance-trains-TIGER-grants--51091

Rail News: Federal Legislation & Regulation

Trump budget ends funding of Amtrak long-distance trains, TIGER grants
 43
inShare














President Donald Trump's proposed federal budget blueprint would cut the U.S. Department of Transportation's budget by $2.4 billion, or 13 percent, to $16.2 billion, according to the document.

Regarding rail, the budget calls for terminating federal support for Amtrak's long-distance service; eliminating the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program; and limiting funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Program (New Starts) to projects with existing full funding grant agreements only.

The budget request streamlines the department to focus on "vital federal safety oversight functions and investing in nationally and regionally significant transportation infrastructure projects," the document states.

"The budget reduces or eliminates programs that are either inefficient, duplicative of other federal efforts, or that involve activities that are better delivered by states, localities or the private sector," it says.

For Amtrak, the budget would restructure and reduce federal subsidies to the national intercity passenger railroad to focus on services within regions. It eliminates federal support for long-distance Amtrak services, "which long have been inefficient and incur the vast majority of Amtrak's operating losses," according to the document.

"This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its state-supported and Northeast Corridor train services," it states.

Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains offer the only Amtrak service in 23 of the 46 states the railroad serves. Eliminating funding for long-distance routes could impact many of the 500 communities served by Amtrak, the railroad's President and Chief Executive Officer Wick Moorman said in a prepared statement.

"These trains connect our major regions, provide vital transportation to residents in rural communities and generate connecting passengers and revenue for our Northeast Corridor and state-supported services," said Moorman. "Amtrak is very focused on running efficiently — we covered 94 percent of our total network operating costs through ticket sales and other revenues in FY16 — but these services all require federal investment."

Moorman said Amtrak officials look forward to ensuring that Trump, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Congress "understand the value of Amtrak's long-distance trains and what these proposed cuts would mean to this important part of the nation's transportation system."


----------



## 2sk21

Who knows if this will really come to pass but it does seem a lot more likely now.I can only be grateful that I was able to complete my long-desired transcontinental trip last year.


----------



## DSS&A

Amtrak is covering 94 percent of its operating costs. The US Highway system and Interstate Hwy systems (excluding tollways) cover ZERO percent of their operating costs, and are therefore money losers (using the same measuring method), and yet NO Politicians are calling to end funds for those modes of transportation.....


----------



## dlagrua

I cannot see cutting passenger service to the many states that support this administration will be beneficial to it. I predicted that privatization of long distance trains was a possibility and this could be what the administration is pointing to. Lets see how it all unfolds. Again this is a PROPOSED budget. When it gets to congress it could be a whole different story and I predict severe opposition. .


----------



## dlagrua

KmH said:


> tommylicious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and Amtrak: Gotta think he would cut it to the bone, if not even completely scrap it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, Mr. Trump could not do that on his own hook.
> 
> He would also need the cooperation of Congress.
Click to expand...

That is my point. The president can propose a budget but congress must appropriate the funds. I would think that there would be resistance to cutting all long distance passenger service. It would prove to be a fatal political mistake .


----------



## Rover

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/70086-alex-kummant-his-views-on-funding-profitability/


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!


----------



## Rover

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!


Okay....Thank You Olympian Hiawatha


----------



## Ryan

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Once again everyone is getting all up in a panic over nothing. Amtrak has survived these attacks year after year and is still going strong. I look ahead 8 years and see the strong foundations laid for a massive rebirth of passenger rail, backed by both Government and private industry. So back to your safe rooms and comfort puppies; the trains are not going away!


I want whatever you're smoking.


----------



## Espee Bob

*"Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains offer the only Amtrak service in 23 of the 46 states the railroad serves. Eliminating funding for long-distance routes could impact many of the 500 communities served by Amtrak, the railroad's President and Chief Executive Officer Wick Moorman said in a prepared statement.

"These trains connect our major regions, provide vital transportation to residents in rural communities and generate connecting passengers and revenue for our Northeast Corridor and state-supported services," said Moorman."*

It seems the savior of Amtrak LD and Amtrak in general, at least in the past is the reality in the statements above by Moorman. I have no reference for this, but I read somewhere long ago that Richard Nixon very cynically signed the bill creating Amtrak, firmly believing that no one in the US had interest in rail travel any more, and the whole thing would collapse quickly and go away within a couple of years. Here we are, 46 years later. Amtrak has survived the assaults of Congress and the Executive that entire time. GW Bush wanted to zero out ALL subsidy to Amtrak, not just the long distance trains. Yet they roll on.

I've heard some people say that Congress prevents killing Amtrak, even the LD routes, because of those "46 states." That's just four short of the whole gang, and therefore involves pro-Amtrak constituents of politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are towns in those wide open lonely places that have Amtrak as the only lifeline, as they have no airport nearby and severe weather or other catastrophes can potentially leave them cut off. Minot, ND is an example of this.

The Trump proposal is interesting in that it zeroes in on the LD trains, and (sort of) acknowledges the importance of the NEC and regionals. My crystal ball says the LDs are probably going to continue, but Congress might pressure Amtrak to "do something" to demonstrate austerity. We might therefore see things like the disappearance of the diners.

In any case, ride them while you can. I'm a Californian with family in the midwest, and make the wonderful trip on Amtrak nearly every year. I'll be boarding the Zephyr in Emeryville next Friday and I can't wait!


----------



## Asher

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> I think its the difference between getting somewhere and seeing something along the way. Both great modes of transportation.


----------



## Groundpounder

JoeBas said:


> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> a) 9/12/01
> 
> b) Some people are afraid to fly
> 
> c) Some people are medically unable to fly
> 
> d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.
> 
> e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.
Click to expand...

I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.



Eric S said:


> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, trains don't make a whole lot of sense for NYP-LAX travel. But they do for NYP-SYR, and ROC-CLE, and TOL-CHI, and CHI-KCY, etc, etc. Now, it's also true that a better case can be made for the eastern long distance trains than the western long distance trains. But, politics being what it is, it's not hard to imagine that if/when all long distance serve is defunded (at least at the federal level), that it will be rather difficult to get much federal funding (whether capital funds or otherwise) for state corridors.
> 
> Ultimately, though, the problem with your view is that you're looking at trains with an endpoint only mentality. Trains don't just serve their origin and destination, but also all the enroute points in between.
Click to expand...

If there is demand for service between those places you mention, then why aren't those routes profitable?


----------



## chrsjrcj

One or two trains a day averaging ~50 mph is not a formula for profitability. Those corridors could support fast, frequent, and reliable train service, and come very close to an operating profit.


----------



## Eric S

Transportation of people by whatever mode is generally not "profitable" and requires significant public support in some form or fashion - subsidizing operating costs, building and maintaining the right of way, etc.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Groundpounder said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> a) 9/12/01
> 
> b) Some people are afraid to fly
> 
> c) Some people are medically unable to fly
> 
> d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.
> 
> e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you're not aware that other modes of transportation also use taxpayers money, including flying.
Click to expand...


----------



## A Voice

Groundpounder said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> a) 9/12/01
> 
> b) Some people are afraid to fly
> 
> c) Some people are medically unable to fly
> 
> d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.
> 
> e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, trains don't make a whole lot of sense for NYP-LAX travel. But they do for NYP-SYR, and ROC-CLE, and TOL-CHI, and CHI-KCY, etc, etc. Now, it's also true that a better case can be made for the eastern long distance trains than the western long distance trains. But, politics being what it is, it's not hard to imagine that if/when all long distance serve is defunded (at least at the federal level), that it will be rather difficult to get much federal funding (whether capital funds or otherwise) for state corridors.
> 
> Ultimately, though, the problem with your view is that you're looking at trains with an endpoint only mentality. Trains don't just serve their origin and destination, but also all the enroute points in between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is demand for service between those places you mention, then why aren't those routes profitable?
Click to expand...

Please explain how you are "helping" someone buy a ticket. If you are referring to the infamous "loss per passenger" numbers, those are neither a valid nor reliable measure of a trains' financial performance, and have been previously debunked and discredited.

Regardless, while there are other means of transportation, it is also true that one size really doesn't fit all; That applies as much to modes of transport as it does to bathrobes. Flying generally makes less and less sense the shorter the journey in question, with the inverse perhaps true for buses. Passenger rail, as aptly demonstrated by both the regional corridors and the long-distance services, fulfills something of both roles, and is far more efficient at moving large numbers of people; Further, rail is often the more desirable mode of travel, more comfortable than bus or car but lacking the hassles and regulations of air travel. Finally, you don't want all your (transportation) eggs in one basket. Even discounting weather or terrorism, there are capacity constraints; You literally cannot build enough roads or large enough airports (particularly at reasonable cost) to handle the volume of everyone who wants to travel; You need alternatives, and that means support for passenger rail.

Why routes are not profitable has been previously addressed. There are* no *profitable routes*. None.* But, *all* forms of transportation receive some manner of taxpayer support, often in the form of a hidden subsidy. The difference with Amtrak is the need to cut the company a check every fiscal year, as opposed to the financial support flying (pardon the pun) more under the radar.


----------



## Ziv

How many of you have read Trump's book, The Art of the Deal? It isn't the best selling book of all time, as Trump claims, but it did sell about a million copies before he became president. And it really does sum up how he works in business, and apparently, in politics. First, if you want something, do whatever you can to minimize its apparent value. Second, if you want to sell something, do everything you can to maximize its apparent value. Third, offer about a third of what you are willing to pay. If they counter at all, you will get a great deal. Fourth, work the media. Fifth, it is all about Trump.

The third tenet is in play on this budget proposal. He is offering 1/3 of the spending he is willing to see put into any budget. But the House is where the heavy lifting is done on budgets. There will be room to negotiate and you can bet that the flyover Senators and Representatives will be fighting right alongside their coastal brethren to keep Amtrak running in their states.

And, finally, remember how many White House budget proposals have been enacted recently.


----------



## JoeBas

And just because you DO like flying, doesn't mean that I should help *YOU* buy a ticket.

It's called a society for a reason. Without it, we'd all be living in log cabins somewhere yelling at everyone else to get off our lawn.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Ziv said:


> How many of you have read Trump's book, The Art of the Deal? It isn't the best selling book of all time, as Trump claims, but it did sell about a million copies before he became president. And it really does sum up how he works in business, and apparently, in politics. First, if you want something, do whatever you can to minimize its apparent value. Second, if you want to sell something, do everything you can to maximize its apparent value. Third, offer about a third of what you are willing to pay. If they counter at all, you will get a great deal. Fourth, work the media. Fifth, it is all about Trump.
> 
> The third tenet is in play on this budget proposal. He is offering 1/3 of the spending he is willing to see put into any budget. But the House is where the heavy lifting is done on budgets. There will be room to negotiate and you can bet that the flyover Senators and Representatives will be fighting right alongside their coastal brethren to keep Amtrak running in their states.
> 
> And, finally, remember how many White House budget proposals have been enacted recently.


VERY WELL SAID! This sums it up PERFECTLY and allowed me to save time by not needing to read any further on this thread!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.


----------



## JoeBas

So he proposes to cut the discretionary budget by, say, 40%, and we're supposed to be happy if the cut is only 30%?

So, he proposes to get rid of all the LD, and if he only gets rid of the SL, SWC, CONO, EB, CL and Downeaster, we should be happy?

The government... is not... a business. It's purpose... is not... to make money for shareholders. It's mission... is not... to screw the other guy... because... WE ARE THE OTHER GUY.

Holy flipping Komadju!


----------



## Don Newcomb

Just so everyone understands the problem: Of course Trump wants to increase defense spending. I don't have the figures but the cost of a destroyer would probably cover Amtrak's subsidy for a year.


----------



## prewarlionelrailfan

Ok....someone has to do it, so I guess it will be me. Have you all seen the Trump budget? Heres a link:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Trump-budget-ends-funding-of-Amtrak-long-distance-trains-TIGER-grants--51091

Let the sparks fly.


----------



## Don Newcomb

CAMISSY55 said:


> Fly-over states (overwhelmingly poor, rural, and predominantly Red States) are not likely going to be able (or willing) to cover the funding of LD trains. I take the CONO to CHI from rural Mississippi simply to get to connect to other LD trains. I can not see MS coughing up dollars to fund the CONO. Hell, our state preacher in chief.... I mean governor, wouldn't even allow ACA Medicaid expansion!


Mississippi taxes anything and everything they can, property, cars, groceries, income, etc. yet the state has such a large proportion of poor that the $480M cost of Medicaid expansion was an impossibility. It's all the state can do to continue to provide a basic educational foundation and basic services without expanding anything. If Congress wasn't going to provide the funds, Mississippi couldn't pay the bill. This is the fallacy of leaving long-distance rail support up to the states. There'd be a big hole in the system where it would have passed through Mississippi. Probably Louisiana too they surely don't have any budget surplus either.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

JoeBas said:


> So he proposes to cut the discretionary budget by, say, 40%, and we're supposed to be happy if the cut is only 30%?
> 
> So, he proposes to get rid of all the LD, and if he only gets rid of the SL, SWC, CONO, EB, CL and Downeaster, we should be happy?


Last time I checked the Downeaster is a state route.

If the SWC and CL are on the hit list while other stay, whoever made the choices are idiots. I'd tell you which ones I would cut but you can probably guess.


----------



## JoeBas

Point

====

Head


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.


Not a practical suggestion, for one. Long-distance trains pass through multiple states, and you could never consistently get all of them to agree on payments, level of service, routes, schedule, or pretty much anything regarding interstate passenger rail, which is properly a federal responsibility. Individual states look out primarily for their own interests, but long-distance travel is a national interest.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.


Do you live in Ohio, Texas or Florida? If not, why do you care if they have Amtrak service?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the flyover/rural states want their trains so much, why don't their state DOT's pay for them instead of the rest of us paying for them? I'm more worried about Ohio, Texas, and Florida losing Amtrak service than North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live in Ohio, Texas or Florida? If not, why do you care if they have Amtrak service?
Click to expand...

Well I've been to Florida and I'd love to go back. I have family in Texas so I would want to visit there as well. Plus millions of people live in those states and denying them trains would be a bad thing IMO.


----------



## dlagrua

Lets back up to the original topic. The Trump budget means little but an idea that is always subject to radical change.. Congress controls the federal budget and has always had the "power of the purse" . If you want to talk about the transportation budget only a few percent of it goes to passenger rail. Rail Passengers pay a fare that equates to 94% of the Amtrak operating cost. Drivers on the highway contribute little to maintain the billions that it costs to maintain them by paying only a 18 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax . You fill up once a week at say 20 gallons, and you are paying $3.60 to use interstate highways anytime that you wish. .


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

If Trump cuts all of Amtrak's long distance trains, or even any of them, I'm going to vomit!


----------



## Ziv

I think the vast majority of us would be irritated if he did zero out Amtrak long distance train funding, or an equivalent amount from the amount Amtrak normally gets, but he can't do anything without the house and the senate voting for it. Passing a budget is hard enough without making the 535 irritated with you. But again, this is probably a negotiation ploy. Whether he really wants to defund the LD trains or not is hard to say. My money is on not really. But I have been wrong often enough that I try to never say never. He also zeroed out NEA, NPR, NEH, the ADF, the Climate Change Research Board (I think) and a slew of other associations. The thing to remember is that this is a process, not a demand. He plays this card and the rest of the crowd plays theirs over the next couple months. Then he plays another card, repeat as needed.

He won't get all he wants, and we won't ever know what he really wanted most, because he will say whatever result he gets is what he really wanted and is the most important point.

The guy is a jerk, but he is one of the first politicians I know who negotiates like a businessman, not a Capital Hill sausage maker.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> If Trump cuts all of Amtrak's long distance trains, or even any of them, I'm going to vomit!


----------



## Lonestar648

I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure. I guess this country's love of everyone having their own personal car rather than more efficient public transportation. It costs more per person who drives to maintain and properly grow the road and bridge infrastructure, Problem I can see for Trump and Congress is that previous Congress sessions never appropriated the money needed for Amtrak so now they faced with needing to replace almost the entire fleet let alone grow the fleet with the growth of passengers riding and additional routes proposed. So I guess with most Republicans advocating the elimination of passenger rail, like McCain, It is a logical decision for Trump to cut the Amtrak. He can't afford to fund Amtrak properly to move forward, so why not cut the funds which also makes the majority of Congress happy. I personally think it will be a major mistake, one that will be totally regretted years from now.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

It's all politics unfortunately. Trump and the Republicans preyed on the elderly, poor, uneducated to get their votes. Now that the election is over the charade for the most part has come to an end. No trillion dollar infustructure program is on the horizon. The gutting of America has just begun, look at the budget proposed. As much as I hate to say it, the time to take your long distance train rides is now. Amtrak's now in a budget fight with the USCG, TSA, not to mention endless social programs such as Meals on Wheels etc.

It's very possible Amtrak will have luck in the Senate. The problem lays in the House where many members are very anti middle class anything. Point in case more then a few House members won't go along with Paul Ryan's healthcare bill not because of the cuts, but because the cuts are not punitive enough. Amtrak's chances are iffy at best in this toxic environment. I realize most Amtrak cuts happend during times of Democratic leadership but it's a new Republican Party post Tea Party.

Call your reps, write your newspaper editorial section. We have to at least put a fight up and try. Our great nation has more then enough money to fund passenger rail and even expand it. Poll after poll have shown that's also what Americans want. Amtrak is a rounding error on the budget.


----------



## Lonestar648

I have already written my Senators and US Representatives. I have also written my governor and state reps about the state loosing passenger rail. Everyone needs to write and have family and friends write. Each letter received equates to a number of votes feeling the same way.


----------



## A Voice

Contact to Senators and Representatives is premature at this point. Over the coming months the respective committees will _begin_ to craft a budget, and only then will we have a (real) idea of just how much money they intend to appropriate to Amtrak. The likely outcome is that it will be barely - and just barely - enough to keep everything (including long-distance) running for one more year, but far less than the company really needs. That will be the time to write letters and make phone calls; Our viewpoints will have far more of an impact while Amtrak's budget is actually under consideration than it will now, only to be forgotten by the time anything important happens.

Passenger rail supporters would do well to remember history, particularly the line (paraphrased) about those who do not learn from history being doomed to repeat it. We've been down this road too many times before; A Presidential budget proposal which omits major Amtrak funding is almost 'business as usual'. All these "the sky is falling" posts would be amusing if it weren't for the fact some people will actually fall for it. This actually does a disservice to the advocacy of passenger rail. We need to keep the hyperbole in check.


----------



## john small berries

*"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."* HL Mencken first wrote this in 1915.

For me, I just don't care enough to do any calling. Living in California, we have state funded rail service that is usable for daily needs and the long distance trains are more of an alternative mode of transit than anything I use on a regular enough basis to care any more.

That the moron we elected would propose something like this, along with all the other petty and cruel elements in the proposed budget, should come as no surprise to anyone who can fog a mirror - assuming they were at any time paying any attention to the man himself or the people who were advising him. Killing Amtrak has been a hobby for a certain group pf people in DC who neither care about alternate transportation nor about the idea that there is a "common good" as defined and hashed out by the founders both during the original confederation of states and as part of forming the republic during the writing of and the adoption of the Constitution.

As we as a nation chose, through action, inaction, or spite, to elect Trump we are now going to have to face the consequences of that election. If Amtrak funding works itself out during the process, so be it. However, beware. In the past, when Amtrak has been zeroed out, we were led by people who were actively interested in governance and the result of the compromises that led to funding remaining for Amtrak in the final budget were acceptable. 

With this bunch of nihilists and a president who is more concerned with personal aggrandizement, both financial and emotional, than actual governance we just might get that Heritage wet dream of killing long distance train travel. And as a nation it's our own damned fault. 

Too bad, so sad. No Trumpaloopa who voted for him should ever again complain about losing their ride on the train of their choice if this happens.


----------



## JoeBas

Lonestar648 said:


> I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure.


He doesn't consider anything. This is straight from the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## acelafan

I think it's easier to fight an extreme budget position of "cut all LD service" than one that proposes to cut the LD train funding by some percentage or some XX dollar amount. The latter will get ugly and nasty very fast.

I don't think it's ever too early to contact Congress and express support for Amtrak services.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

acelafan said:


> I think it's easier to fight an extreme budget position of "cut all LD service" than one that proposes to cut the LD train funding by some percentage or some XX dollar amount. The latter will get ugly and nasty very fast.
> 
> I don't think it's ever too early to contact Congress and express support for Amtrak services.


Agreed!


----------



## BCL

Lonestar648 said:


> I am totally disappointed that he doesn't consider passenger rail part of this country's infrastructure. I guess this country's love of everyone having their own personal car rather than more efficient public transportation. It costs more per person who drives to maintain and properly grow the road and bridge infrastructure, Problem I can see for Trump and Congress is that previous Congress sessions never appropriated the money needed for Amtrak so now they faced with needing to replace almost the entire fleet let alone grow the fleet with the growth of passengers riding and additional routes proposed. So I guess with most Republicans advocating the elimination of passenger rail, like McCain, It is a logical decision for Trump to cut the Amtrak. He can't afford to fund Amtrak properly to move forward, so why not cut the funds which also makes the majority of Congress happy. I personally think it will be a major mistake, one that will be totally regretted years from now.


I think you're giving Trump too much credit. For the most part he isn't really all that beholden to the people who actually voted for him. They served his ends, and with a few exceptions they don't really matter to him any more. Second, I don't think Trump is all that personally involved in any of this. He's got people writing the proposed budget whose philosophical stand is that air travel and personal vehicle travel are king. They're not personally invested in helping out his voting base.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

For what it's worth... The budget also wants to cut subsidized air travel to small towns, and privatize the FAA traffic control. Both of those moves would end up raising airline tickets quite a bit I think.


----------



## seat38a

AmtrakBlue said:


> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> a) 9/12/01
> 
> b) Some people are afraid to fly
> 
> c) Some people are medically unable to fly
> 
> d) Some people hold personal or religious beliefs that don't permit them to fly.
> 
> e) The government was not created to make a profit. True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get that, but there are other methods of getting places besides federally subsidized train service. Just cause you don't like flying doesn't mean I should help buy you a ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundpounder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you're not aware that other modes of transportation also use taxpayers money, including flying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wether it covers 100% of the cost or not, those other transportations collect taxes from the user. Airfare has PFC and other taxes collect from the user. Roads are taxed through the Federal and Local Fuel tax, Vehicle registration blah blah blah, tolls from the user. I'm a pro train person but, the fact of the matter is, Amtrak's money comes right out of general taxation via income tax and borrowing it from the Social Security trust fund vs other transportation methods that at least tries to collect a user fee. When I go on a cruise, I have to pay a port fee and a bunch of other crap to pay for the port facilities. Wether you like it or not, the fact is Amtrak does not collect a user fee/taxes like the other transportation methods do. In many cases either directly or indirectly, rail is subsidized by higher gas taxes just as New Jersey recently did or higher sales tax which gets collect on gas as well out here in California.
> 
> This week, I booked a flight on United to New Orleans. Here is just the taxes that I paid:
> 
> 
> U.S. Transportation Tax:66.06
> 
> U.S. Flight Segment Tax:16.40
> 
> September 11th Security Fee:11.20
> 
> U.S. Passenger Facility Charge:18.00
> 
> As the tax itemized above shows, I'm paying for everything via tax from the Airport Terminal, TSA Security, FAA and ATC to the runways.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ryan

Nope.

Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.

Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.

Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.

Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.


----------



## Lonestar648

Every mode of transportation is subsidized out of the general fund of the Fed and State tax revenues which in some cases is supplemented by additional taxes and/or fees.


----------



## Karl1459

Ryan said:


> Nope.
> 
> Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.
> 
> Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.
> 
> Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.
> 
> Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.


Yep.

Ryan is correct. Though the interconnected and interdependent subsidies that exist are too complex (for me) to unravel.

Two points... First favoring rail is that the horrific costs of highway deaths, catastrophic injuries, and incident response are rarely funded from road user taxes or insurance. The costs following a high energy automobile crash, the helicopter ride to the level 1 trauma center, the day or two in the trauma center, and if surviving that long the week to month in intensive care, the month to year in rehab, and the lifetime of supportive care can easily run well over a million dollars per person. In 2016 possibly 40,000 people were killed in road crashes http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/with costs of injuries well over 400 billion.

Second, maybe not favoring rail, is much of the air travel infrastructure is also shared by our various Air Forces (or will be in the hopefully not happening all out war). How to allocate that?

Ultimately Amtrak's funding is from Congress, and individual congresscritters tend to see the local support for passenger rail where it exists and realize that their constituents feel that the subsidy is warranted.


----------



## seat38a

Ryan said:


> Nope.
> 
> Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.
> 
> Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.
> 
> Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.
> 
> Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.


I never said it covered 100% of the cost. I said those transportations collect money from the users via taxes or user fee vs Amtrak which has no such fee's or taxes and get all of what comes short of the fare box from the Federal Government or indirectly by collecting taxes from the other transportations that do collect a user fee/tax. How the government blows the money it collects or overspends I don't have control over. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, I have paid the fees to cover my use of the terminal, TSA, etc as its itemized in my ticket and I paid for what they told me to pay.

On my international trip coming up in May, I even have to pay for customs and immigration as a line item tax. Wether politicians have the balls to actually raise taxes and fees on gas and air carrier taxes to the level its needs to be to cover the real cost without a tragedy forcing their hands is another story.


----------



## Don Newcomb

Lonestar648 said:


> Every mode of transportation is subsidized out of the general fund of the Fed and State tax revenues which in some cases is supplemented by additional taxes and/or fees.


I believe that part of the budget proposal is also to defund and privatize the air traffic control system.


----------



## seat38a

Karl1459 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Those taxes don't cover all the expenses of operating the civil aviation system.
> 
> Just like the complete cost of roads don't come from fuel taxes.
> 
> Literally every mode of transportation in existence gets subsidized by people that never have the opportunity to use it.
> 
> Once you get your facts in order, the rest of your opinion falls down around you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Ryan is correct. Though the interconnected and interdependent subsidies that exist are too complex (for me) to unravel.
> 
> Two points... First favoring rail is that the horrific costs of highway deaths, catastrophic injuries, and incident response are rarely funded from road user taxes or insurance. The costs following a high energy automobile crash, the helicopter ride to the level 1 trauma center, the day or two in the trauma center, and if surviving that long the week to month in intensive care, the month to year in rehab, and the lifetime of supportive care can easily run well over a million dollars per person. In 2016 possibly 40,000 people were killed in road crashes http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/with costs of injuries well over 400 billion.
> 
> Second, maybe not favoring rail, is much of the air travel infrastructure is also shared by our various Air Forces (or will be in the hopefully not happening all out war). How to allocate that?
> 
> Ultimately Amtrak's funding is from Congress, and individual congresscritters tend to see the local support for passenger rail where it exists and realize that their constituents feel that the subsidy is warranted.
Click to expand...

Each region has their own taxation for first responder funding, but where I live and where my parents live, we specifically have a line item on our property tax under "voted indebtedness" to the county and city for which the voters agreed to pay a higher property tax for first responders. I remember that TV ad about how if the voters passed the measure, it would ensure the availability of all that you described above.


----------



## Lonestar648

How will the private operation of the FAA ATC generate enough revenue to be reasonably profitable? Is the Fed going to guarantee a minimum revenue to attract bidders? If so where is that money coming from.


----------



## seat38a

Lonestar648 said:


> How will the private operation of the FAA ATC generate enough revenue to be reasonably profitable? Is the Fed going to guarantee a minimum revenue to attract bidders? If so where is that money coming from.


Nav Canada does it in Canada without needing any extra tax money.


----------



## Rover

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


By your reasoning, the National Parks & Monuments should be done away with, and put to better use, since they don't turn a good enough profit, and take up taxpayer dollars.

There is a quality of life issue with having National parks, whether they are profitable or not. It's called recreation.

I say being able to ride a LD train should be supported with taxpayer dollars. You get to see the USA, the land that your tax dollars are defending through Defense spending, unless one's idea of the USA, is only the "big city" they exist in...

It's a spiritual thing. It's really a sad statement, that America won't invest in LD rail. Instead funding the "glory" of air travel.

I say cut a big way all of the student loan funding. College is way over-priced, mainly because they know about the Govt.'s willingness to bankroll their over-priced scheme.

Other nations have National Rail, why can't the US???

Maybe if Trump can pack the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, then things can get done for the National interest, over the objections of who knows what..


----------



## Dakota 400

The presented Budget is a figment of imagination. Once the Congress gets done with it, if it ever does, the reality will be different.

For the benefit of Amtrak, I hope sanity will prevail.

Now that Vice-President Biden is off the National scene, are there others in Congress with whom we ought to be communicating in support of Amtrak?


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> Now that Vice-President Biden is off the National scene, are there others in Congress with whom we ought to be communicating in support of Amtrak?


Your Congressman and your two Senators of course. Biden couldn't do much as Vice President as far as passing a budget goes anyway unless there was a 50-50 tie in the Senate holding things up.


----------



## Lonestar648

Biden was a major supporter who campaigned for Amtrak throughout his career, showing his love of trains by taking the Acela home to Delaware in January, just like he used to do when he was a Senator..


----------



## RSG

jis said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Vice-President Biden is off the National scene, are there others in Congress with whom we ought to be communicating in support of Amtrak?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Congressman and your two Senators of course. Biden couldn't do much as Vice President as far as passing a budget goes anyway unless there was a 50-50 tie in the Senate holding things up.
Click to expand...

That's true as long as you know where they stand on rail & transportation issues. For me, my newly-installed congressperson is a _tabula rasa_, but given personal history and personal economic situation, I'm going to say that there's no knowledge and little interest of rail issues. My junior senator loves to brag about "Working in Washington, and living at home" so he spends the majority of his time outside of Capitol Hill in the air or traveling to/from the arrival/departure airports. Does he give an airborne rodent's behind about something as backwards [to him] as passenger rail service? Not bloody likely. On the other hand, my senior senator is chair of one of the money committees, so his committee will have a say in writing the budget. He's also known for being thoughtful and realizing the impact that Federal dollars have "back home". So yes, I feel that contacting him would definitely be worthwhile--at the appropriate point in time.

"Are there others in Congress with whom we ought to be communicating in support of Amtrak?"

To further answer that question, since the current issue is funding in the budget, start paying attention to who sits on the committees that control the budget and the appropriations process. Since all funding bills originate in the US House Of Representatives, one of the first stops is the House Committee on Appropriations. The Chair and Ranking Member are both from passenger rail-infused states (NJ & NY), but there are also members from KY, AL, TX, CA, ID, FL, PA, GA, CT, NC, IN, OH, AR, KS, MN, NE, TN, MD, FL, ME, NV, UT, IA, WV, WI, MS, VA, and MA. The Appropriations Committee also has a Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies chaired by Mario Diaz-Balart of FL and Ranking Member David Price of NC. Members on that subcommittee come from PA, OH, IA, CA, GA, IL, MA and TX, in addition to NC and FL.

Most of the states listed are affected by long-distance rail service so if anyone has a representative who sits on the committee at large or the transportation subcommittee, now is the time to start developing a relationship with them. How does that work? By calling their regional office and finding out who the staffer is that deals with appropriations-related issues. Often they will have someone who deals with specific areas of interest; other times it they will have a generic person who deals with all the contact from the Little People (often the case with largely-populated districts). That staffer may be in the home state, or they may be in DC. If your rep represents a large number of people (such as is likely in states like CA, NY, or FL), it will be harder to break through the gatekeepers set up to filter out the noise but with persistence and effort, it can be done. If you live in a more sparsely-populated state, you will have better chances of getting through, generally speaking. If you can reach someone via phone and are comfortable doing so, start by asking them about the appropriations process and what the deadlines are for funding requests for the budget-writing process. They may or may not immediately know that information. Briefly explain why you're calling and what your interest is. State that you understand that the budget submitted by the White House cuts a significant amount of funding for NPRC [Amtrak] and see what the response is. If they seem knowledgeable and receptive to the inquiry, you can drill down a bit further. If the response is dismissive or patronizing, thank them for their time and end the call. If you feel better about putting it in writing, do so. If you feel you are developing a rapport, continue the contact as it relates to the timeline, if one is given.

Easter Recess is fast approaching so most Members of Congress will be home for a week or so. Find out where they will be during their time away from DC and drop by one of their local appearances. This could be Town Meetings, but the last few years (and particularly the last few weeks) has started to be the beginning of the end of that type of event for most congresspeople. More likely they can be found at various group meetings, such as Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, Junior League, etc. Sometimes their appearances will be listed on their official WWW site, but due to the tenor of the times, most meetings will likely not be publicized very far in advance. Often it is easier to scour local listings of club and organizational meetings to see who the speakers are. When at a personal appearance, look for any familiar staffers. If you've had previous contact with any and they happen to be in attendance, approach them first and (re-)introduce yourself. Briefly mention your issue and request that they bring it to the attention of the member at their earliest convenience. If you can get 'face time' with the real deal, all the more the better as long as you can cogently present your concerns. To this end, practice giving an "elevator speech" beforehand with all the relevant points in one brief outline. (To those not familiar, an Elevator Speech is a sales pitch which can be delivered in the average amount of time it takes for a ride in an elevator. Think of it as information presented in lieu of small talk.)

Conduct: this can't be stressed enough. Be constructive and positive. This goes double and triple if the representative you are trying to interact with is a Republican and you are something else. Using terms like "the Orange Menace in the White House" will get you nowhere and will be counterproductive, even with Members of Congress who might privately agree with the sentiment. Be brief and organized in your thoughts and comments, both to members and staffers. You might think that the trip you took in college on the Sunset Limited was the highlight of your life and that everyone should have the benefit of your memory, but it's irrelevant to the matter at hand and there are better ways of communicating your enthusiasm for rail travel. Similarly, if you go to a personal appearance and the rest of the crowd is hostile and angry, ask a staffer what is the best way to communicate a message to the member on an issue and leave. Legitimate concerns will get drowned out in any drama-laden presentation which winds up on the local news and social media due to its contentiousness.

*Summary/TL;DR*: Funding is the current issue; that process starts in the US House and the Appropriations Committee is key to the process. Representatives who sit on the larger committee or the subcommittee which deals with transportation issues will have a greater impact than the 'Average Joe' member who does not. Learn to communicate effectively with a representative via a staff member, and know the issue you are trying to get across while respecting their limits of availability and time constraints. Be brief, be positive, be polite, and be enthusiastic. Use congressional recesses to interact with representatives and their staff, but only if it can be done constructively. Follow up with any contact, but not too frequently. Get interested family and friends to also do likewise if willing.


----------



## RSG

acelafan said:


> I don't think it's ever too early to contact Congress and express support for Amtrak services.


As long as it's done with forethought and a game plan, that's generally true. A generic "I :wub: Amtrak!" message to your representative today probably isn't the most effective way to get the message across, however---particularly if they do not sit on a budget- or transportation-related committee.

Also, contacting them just because you can isn't an effective use of time or resources either. A woman on Twitter the other day mentioned that she had contacted her representative 20 times over the past two months. I will guarantee you after the fourth point of contact or so, everyone who came in contact with her stopped listening to what she said, even if the representative they work for is sympathetic to her issues. She got labeled with the "whiner" tag and at most, her position got marked on a tally sheet and that's as far as anything went.

Your singular voice can be powerful and effective, but only if it's used wisely and not overused or used just to vent frustration with the gub'mint, the opposite political party of yours, your life, or the world in general.


----------



## RSG

A Voice said:


> Our viewpoints will have far more of an impact while Amtrak's budget is actually under consideration than it will now, only to be forgotten by the time anything important happens.
> 
> Passenger rail supporters would do well to remember history, particularly the line (paraphrased) about those who do not learn from history being doomed to repeat it. We've been down this road too many times before; A Presidential budget proposal which omits major Amtrak funding is almost 'business as usual'. All these "the sky is falling" posts would be amusing if it weren't for the fact some people will actually fall for it. This actually does a disservice to the advocacy of passenger rail. We need to keep the hyperbole in check.


Could not agree more; the pointless anger and name-calling (and not just here) will not accomplish anything, other than make a few people feel good (temporarily). The budding John Micas who may be yet-to-be-identified are counting on a misplaced outrage approach by their opponents to accomplish their own mission.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Just keep in mind that Actual Facts and Common Sense don't exist for the Dittoheads and Zealots that make up Trump World!

We've gone through the Looking Glass and down the Rabbit Hole!Hang on to your hats folks, you ain't seen nothing yet!


----------



## jis

I think it is even more important to engage your reps in a conversation if they have been anti-Amtrak. If they have been pro-Amtrak it is more than likely that they will continue to be so. What we need is to get those on the fence or near it to flip to pro-Amtrak or lean that way, rather than be committed anti-Amtrak. Without them we will lose the battle. These battles are won at the edges, not just sitting in the support bubble.


----------



## Ziv

RSG, you make a lot of very good points! One thing that I take away from this is that it may be worth it for me to donate money to any politician who is on the fence with regards to Amtrak. They may not be the person I voted for, but a simple $20 donation will put me on their email list and will probably mean that any emails I send them will be tagged as a donor and therefore, perhaps, my comment/request may receive a bit more consideration.



RSG said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that Vice-President Biden is off the National scene, are there others in Congress with whom we ought to be communicating in support of Amtrak?
> 
> 
> 
> Your Congressman and your two Senators of course. Biden couldn't do much as Vice President as far as passing a budget goes anyway unless there was a 50-50 tie in the Senate holding things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Summary/TL;DR*: Funding is the current issue; that process starts in the US House and the Appropriations Committee is key to the process. Representatives who sit on the larger committee or the subcommittee which deals with transportation issues will have a greater impact than the 'Average Joe' member who does not. Learn to communicate effectively with a representative via a staff member, and know the issue you are trying to get across while respecting their limits of availability and time constraints. Be brief, be positive, be polite, and be enthusiastic. Use congressional recesses to interact with representatives and their staff, but only if it can be done constructively. Follow up with any contact, but not too frequently. Get interested family and friends to also do likewise if willing.
Click to expand...


----------



## neroden

Ziv said:


> RSG, you make a lot of very good points! One thing that I take away from this is that it may be worth it for me to donate money to any politician who is on the fence with regards to Amtrak. They may not be the person I voted for, but a simple $20 donation will put me on their email list and will probably mean that any emails I send them will be tagged as a donor and therefore, perhaps, my comment/request may receive a bit more consideration.


I was told by the office of one of my politicians that they were prohibited from knowing who was on the donor lists, to avoid conflicts of interest.
Of course if you're talking to a *Republican*, I wouldn't count on them following that rule.  But they might.


----------



## Ziv

Nero den, I think graft is pretty much an equal opportunity employer!


----------



## Ziv

Argh, spellcheck rears it's ugly head again!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

A Voice said:


> Contact to Senators and Representatives is premature at this point. Over the coming months the respective committees will _begin_ to craft a budget, and only then will we have a (real) idea of just how much money they intend to appropriate to Amtrak. The likely outcome is that it will be barely - and just barely - enough to keep everything (including long-distance) running for one more year, but far less than the company really needs. That will be the time to write letters and make phone calls; Our viewpoints will have far more of an impact while Amtrak's budget is actually under consideration than it will now, only to be forgotten by the time anything important happens.
> 
> Passenger rail supporters would do well to remember history, particularly the line (paraphrased) about those who do not learn from history being doomed to repeat it. We've been down this road too many times before; A Presidential budget proposal which omits major Amtrak funding is almost 'business as usual'. All these "the sky is falling" posts would be amusing if it weren't for the fact some people will actually fall for it. This actually does a disservice to the advocacy of passenger rail. We need to keep the hyperbole in check.


I don't disagree with you that the Trump budget is just the beginning of a long process, and the omnibus passed this year, if such happens, will have little resemblance to that budget.

But it is never to early to remind your various congress critters that they have a supporter of passenger rail. Start early, and repeat often. It doesn't hurt if you do it articulately and politely.


----------



## Larry H.

Groundpounder said:


> I love trains as much as the next guy, but I just don't see the purpose of using them for long distance travel in the US. NYC to LAX on the train takes three days and is $291 for a seat in coach. A direct flight on United costs $219. I don't understand why we need to use tax payers money to fund unprofitable routes when there are plenty of alternative methods of transportation.


In reality out here in the small town USA there is little other choices other than driving if you don't want to fly, which I don't. And that is hours away here an way more in many other isolated routes. I agree that the NE Corridor shouldn't be given priority over all the rest of the country. For one thing if we had the net work that Amtrak was given when it took over and the cars to haul the people like up east, things would possibly be much different. When they eliminated many of the connecting hubs and routes they started the death of long distance. When I do use the train to chicago any more I usually find the station to be very filled with passengers. And that is with many people being turned away constantly from the sleeper class cars. One reason to me they are down some lately is they have pushed the fares to pretty unreasonable heights (yes some will pay it anyway) but that doesn't help to keep the trains full overall. And they need more cars to bring on the passengers. Once on board they need diners that actually still function as diners not microwave light. Most people I know are not thrilled to pay a thousand or more for rooms only to have pretty sad food and service.


----------



## seat38a

I think we should call Amtrak for what it really is. It is a Federal Job's program. Here in California, the fact that our State tax dollars while funding public transportation also funds jobs is never lost in advertisement when requesting higher taxes from the voters. I can't find the pdf anymore but couple years ago the number of direct and indirect good paying Amtrak jobs funded through Amtrak California and Metrolink was eye opening. One of the many factors that drove the creation of Amtrak was the freight rails could not operate passenger rail profitably due to labor costs and work rules, which were all dumped onto Amtrak.

Without Amtrak, there would be many current employees out of the job and probably on unemployment or another job that does not pay a decent livable wage. While I personally think 1 coach attendant per coach car is absolutely ridiculous from a for profit perspective, but it makes perfect sense when thought of as a job program. Unfortunately the GOP loves to scuttle job programs unless it is in their own congrestional district.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?

As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.

You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.


----------



## seat38a

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?
> 
> As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.
> 
> You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.


Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.


----------



## A Voice

seat38a said:


> I think we should call Amtrak for what it really is. It is a Federal Job's program. Here in California, the fact that our State tax dollars while funding public transportation also funds jobs is never lost in advertisement when requesting higher taxes from the voters. I can't find the pdf anymore but couple years ago the number of direct and indirect good paying Amtrak jobs funded through Amtrak California and Metrolink was eye opening. One of the many factors that drove the creation of Amtrak was the freight rails could not operate passenger rail profitably due to labor costs and work rules, which were all dumped onto Amtrak.
> 
> Without Amtrak, there would be many current employees out of the job and probably on unemployment or another job that does not pay a decent livable wage. While I personally think 1 coach attendant per coach car is absolutely ridiculous from a for profit perspective, but it makes perfect sense when thought of as a job program. Unfortunately the GOP loves to scuttle job programs unless it is in their own congrestional district.


Were Amtrak _actually_ a jobs program, it really wouldn't be a very good one, considering that staffing levels have already been cut to the bone. But Amtrak _isn't_ a jobs program; It's purpose is a transportation service, providing greater options for mobility to communities across the nation.


----------



## KmH

seat38a said:


> Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.


According to Amtrak's Service Manual, a single TA-C (Train Attendant - Coach) can be required to care for as many as 4 coach cars if the total coach passenger count is less than 150.

The west of Chicago Superliner LD trains never seem to pull more than 4 coach cars.

The Service Manual then allows for adding a 2nd TA-C for 3 or 4 coach cars only if the passenger count exceeds 150 for at

least four (4) hours of daylight travel.

A Superliner coach car has 76 seats. A Superliner coach/baggage car only has 62 seats (none on the lower level).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

seat38a said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?
> 
> As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.
> 
> You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.
> 
> 
> 
> Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Typically the conductor or assistant conductor each open a door. Sometimes one is in the baggage car.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

seat38a said:


> Unfortunately the GOP loves to scuttle job programs unless it is in their own congrestional district.


And you don't think the Democrats think the same way? Does Robert Byrd ring a bell?


----------



## Carolina Special

California HSR? Trump administration has recently halted the federal grant funding, which seems to have a more immediate impact than the proposed budget. With the failure of the cap and trade auctions which was supposed to be the state revenue source, the California Democrats need another very large funding source to keep the HSR building going.


----------



## BCL

Carolina Special said:


> California HSR? Trump administration has recently halted the federal grant funding, which seems to have a more immediate impact than the proposed budget. With the failure of the cap and trade auctions which was supposed to be the state revenue source, the California Democrats need another very large funding source to keep the HSR building going.


That wasn't even a grant for HSR. That was guilt by association since they tapped into the state HSR funds for part of the money to pay for Caltrain electrification. To stop that project is almost pure spite to get at anything remotely associated with HSR.

California HSR is nearly all state funding.


----------



## Maverickstation

As other poster have mentioned this is far from the first time that Amtrak has faced funding cuts in a Presidential budget, BUT these are very different times.

Yes, the budget will be negotiated, and so on, and some LD trains will be funded, but it will not be status quo.

Some LD's will be sacrificed, and some will wind up in less than daily schedules.

Some could wind up split into medium distance day trains.

Stay tuned..........


----------



## seat38a

crescent-zephyr said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?
> 
> As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.
> 
> You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.
> 
> 
> 
> Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Typically the conductor or assistant conductor each open a door. Sometimes one is in the baggage car.
Click to expand...

Yup, I know the difference between a conductor/assistant conductor and a coach attendant. Also, they all hang out in the dining car and gaggle so not so hard to count them or while walking through the coach cars watching them sleep or reading in their reserved seats. You want me to take a picture of each crew member for you next time as proof???


----------



## crescent-zephyr

seat38a said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?
> 
> As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.
> 
> You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.
> 
> 
> 
> Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Typically the conductor or assistant conductor each open a door. Sometimes one is in the baggage car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, I know the difference between a conductor/assistant conductor and a coach attendant. Also, they all hang out in the dining car and gaggle so not so hard to count them or while walking through the coach cars watching them sleep or reading in their reserved seats. You want me to take a picture of each crew member for you next time as proof???
Click to expand...

Yes please. I've never seen one coach attendant per coach.


----------



## New Train Guy

My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

With all due respect not a chance. Any relief will come from Congress. This is truly a "Gut America" budget.



New Train Guy said:


> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!


----------



## seat38a

crescent-zephyr said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't have 1 attendant per coach? Why are you making statements like that when they have no basis in reality?
> 
> As to the federal jobs program... Like it or not Amtrak is providing a service. Ridership continues to increase so people are using that service.
> 
> You can argue if you think that service is needed... and the answer is no it's not. This country would go on without any rail service. It would also go on without daily subsidized mail service. And many other services we don't need.
> 
> 
> 
> Could have fooled me on the last 4 LD train rides. The employees opening the doors were not the conductors or the dining car staff on the coach cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? Typically the conductor or assistant conductor each open a door. Sometimes one is in the baggage car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, I know the difference between a conductor/assistant conductor and a coach attendant. Also, they all hang out in the dining car and gaggle so not so hard to count them or while walking through the coach cars watching them sleep or reading in their reserved seats. You want me to take a picture of each crew member for you next time as proof???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes please. I've never seen one coach attendant per coach.
Click to expand...

If Trump does not scuttle the trains and I decide to take another LD trip after the dismal experience on the SWC I will do. I'm sure the they will love me taking pictures of them yapping in the dining car taking up two tables while there is a waiting list or snoring in their seats will tickle them with joy.


----------



## keelhauled

New Train Guy said:


> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!


Oh see I thought giving him a chance meant waiting to see his budget request and finding out whether he planned to uphold his promise of infrastructure spending before writing him off as another average right wing Heritage Foundation mouthpiece.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

New Train Guy said:


> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!


ABSOLUTELY! Thank you for your good comment!


----------



## jebr

Trump's proposed budget should reflect his thoughts on where to cut the waste after a thorough analysis. The proposed budget cuts all funding for long distance trains. Therefore, Trump believes that Amtrak's long distance trains are a waste. There's simply nothing more to wait for to see what Trump's plans are; the proposed budget is our insight into that.


----------



## Lonestar648

Trump's staff has decided that the states need to pick up the cost for any passenger rail in their states. By doing this and eliminating Long Distance, Trump leaves Amtrak only receiving revenue from the states. Amtrak can stay in operation without Federal support. I think many of the staff and some in congress hope the states can't find the money, therefore it is the states putting an end to Amtrak bit by bit. Will it go this way? I seriously doubt it. Long Distance might survive but with no diners or Sleeper amenities (Lounges, Coffee, meals, etc.). I think they need to get the constant rise in passengers each year to reverse significantly.


----------



## Rover

New Train Guy said:


> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!


If only #MAGA stood for Make Amtrak Great Again


----------



## MikefromCrete

OlympianHiawatha said:


> New Train Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY! Thank you for your good comment!
Click to expand...

What have you guys been smoking?


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

MikefromCrete said:


> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Train Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY! Thank you for your good comment!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What have you guys been smoking?
Click to expand...

Certainly not the same stuff you are. Train to Libbyland leaves in 5 minutes!


----------



## Railroad Bill

People, let's get back on track and avoid the personal attacks.


----------



## A Voice

Maverickstation said:


> Yes, the budget will be negotiated, and so on, and some LD trains will be funded, but it will not be status quo.
> 
> Some LD's will be sacrificed, and some will wind up in less than daily schedules.
> 
> Some could wind up split into medium distance day trains.


'Less than daily' schedules failed miserably in the mid-90's following the Mercer (consultant) driven cuts; What makes you think they would work in 2017?


----------



## Eric S

jebr said:


> Trump's proposed budget should reflect his thoughts on where to cut the waste after a thorough analysis. The proposed budget cuts all funding for long distance trains. Therefore, Trump believes that Amtrak's long distance trains are a waste. There's simply nothing more to wait for to see what Trump's plans are; the proposed budget is our insight into that.


Exactly. The budget plans released so far indicate the administration's general philosophy regarding spending and as it pertains to Amtrak, the "improvements" it involves are cutting long distance trains.


----------



## Rover

Eric S said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's proposed budget should reflect his thoughts on where to cut the waste after a thorough analysis. The proposed budget cuts all funding for long distance trains. Therefore, Trump believes that Amtrak's long distance trains are a waste. There's simply nothing more to wait for to see what Trump's plans are; the proposed budget is our insight into that.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The budget plans released so far indicate the administration's general philosophy regarding spending and as it pertains to Amtrak, the "improvements" it involves are cutting long distance trains.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I will be traveling outside the US to spend my LD train money ...


----------



## RSG

Rover said:


> If only #MAGA stood for Make Amtrak Great Again


That would actually be a good campaign for NARP...


----------



## Bob Dylan

A Voice said:


> Maverickstation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the budget will be negotiated, and so on, and some LD trains will be funded, but it will not be status quo.
> 
> Some LD's will be sacrificed, and some will wind up in less than daily schedules.
> 
> Some could wind up split into medium distance day trains.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Less than daily' schedules failed miserably in the mid-90's following the Mercer (consultant) driven cuts; What makes you think they would work in 2017?
Click to expand...

Excellent point!


----------



## jis

Why are so many people already convinced that some LD trains will be cut, based on what has always been a DOA document, the Presidential budget proposal. It almost seems like half the AU members are eager to figure out a good excuse for cutting Amtrak service. The battle has hardly been joined yet. Clearly the young whippersnappers here never lived through Stockman and Reagan.


----------



## JoeBas

OlympianHiawatha said:


> New Train Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY! Thank you for your good comment!
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is, that what he proposed ($0 for Amtrak Long Distance), isn't what he's proposing? We need to give him time to do a thorough analysis... AFTER he's made his recommendation?

Partisan Politics Suck.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Why are so many people already convinced that some LD trains will be cut, based on what has always been a DOA document, the Presidential budget proposal. It almost seems like half the AU members are eager to figure out a good excuse for cutting Amtrak service. The battle has hardly been joined yet. Clearly the young whippersnappers here never lived through Stockman and Reagan.


This!!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

JoeBas said:


> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Train Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that Trump will do a thorough analysis, cut the waste and improve Amtrak just like every other department. Just give him a chance!
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY! Thank you for your good comment!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what you're saying is, that what he proposed ($0 for Amtrak Long Distance), isn't what he's proposing? We need to give him time to do a thorough analysis... AFTER he's made his recommendation? Partisan Politics Suck.
Click to expand...

It's like watching a child trying to choose between two divorcing parents. They cannot fathom why two things they love don't also love each other. In the absence of comprehension they lash out with irrational emotion.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> It's like watching a child trying to choose between two divorcing parents. They cannot fathom why two things they love don't also love each other. In the absence of comprehension they lash out with irrational emotion.


This ^ A dilemma that most committed Republicans and specially the T-Party types, who also like to avail of a train trip or two on Amtrak eternally suffer from.


----------



## Maverickstation

jis said:


> Clearly the young whippersnappers here never lived through Stockman and Reagan.


OMG, what a stupid comment to make.

Trump is not Reagan, and these are very different times, and for the record I lived through and remember President's from Johnson on up.

Clearly with the budget proposed there will be some funding provided in the usual give and take of budgets, but there will be cuts, and other reductions

to make the budget work. These are very different times from anything else in the past 56, or so years.

Ken


----------



## jis

So you have a feeling that something will be cut therefore you think that anyone that thinks otherwise and is willing to wait and see, or try to do something about it, is stupid? OK, so noted 

Maybe something will get cut. But it is too early to throw in the towel already. We the few, who will actually go and talk to the Senators and Congressmen in April face to face, cannot go in with the assumption that something will be cut. That cannot be our starting position, 'cause then something will definitely get cut. Even those that are writing their Congresspeople, please do not tell them that well it is OK to cut half the trains. Stick to your guns and say nothing should be cut, if you feel we should keep Amtrak happy and healthy to the best of our abilities.

For the rest, it really does not matter since you are a non-participant in the decision making process.


----------



## neroden

I will repeat: not only is this budget *completely* DOA in Congress, it doesn't even represent what Trump wants. I am absolutely sure he didn't even read it. It was just Xeroxed from some Heritage Foundation document.

Call your Congressman and demand full funding for Amtrak (and whatever else is cut in the "idiots' budget" proposed by the Trump administration). Heck, call Trump. The "idiots' budget" is sufficiently contrary to Trump's repeatedly stated desires that we know he won't fight for it and might fight against it.

In fact, I'd suggest pointing out to your Congressman that Trump wants more funding for infrastructure and specifically wants high speed trains. Regardless of what the "idiots' budget" presented by his staffers says.


----------



## RSG

jis said:


> We the few, who will actually go and talk to the Senators and Congressmen in April face to face, cannot go in with the assumption that something will be cut. That cannot be our starting position, 'cause then something will definitely get cut. Even those that are writing their Congresspeople, please do not tell them that well it is OK to cut half the trains. Stick to your guns and say nothing should be cut, if you feel we should keep Amtrak happy and healthy to the best of our abilities.


Absolutely. If anything, the opposite approach should be used. "Ridership is up! Equipment is getting older and more costly to maintain; therefore the budget should be _increased_, not zeroed out!"



neroden said:


> I will repeat: not only is this budget *completely* DOA in Congress, it doesn't even represent what Trump wants. I am absolutely sure he didn't even read it. It was just Xeroxed from some Heritage Foundation document.
> 
> Call your Congressman and demand full funding for Amtrak (and whatever else is cut in the "idiots' budget" proposed by the Trump administration). Heck, call Trump. The "idiots' budget" is sufficiently contrary to Trump's repeatedly stated desires that we know he won't fight for it and might fight against it.
> 
> In fact, I'd suggest pointing out to your Congressman that Trump wants more funding for infrastructure and specifically wants high speed trains. Regardless of what the "idiots' budget" presented by his staffers says.


To piggyback on the above, the sentiment is sound but the approach is somewhat lacking. Using the Bernie Approach is less effective in real life than it sounds on the stump. "Demanding" things rarely gets a positive response, particularly from someone not motivated to give it to you in the first place. Likewise, terms such as "idiots' budget" does not predispose one to think in positive terms about the situation.

Let's assume, at least for a moment, the most positive things about POTUS and the budget. (Yes, I know that's a Herculean task for some.) Let's assume that what was said on the campaign trail was true and that the President values passenger rail transport and let's also assume that he is sincere in funding and rebuilding infrastructure. Let's additionally assume that POTUS has not read details about the budget.

Now let's tie that into talking points for the people making the decision. When Congressman Dontreallygiveacarp says something like "I agree with the budget proposal as presented by the Administration and its goals" then a rejoinder might be "Are you aware of what President Trump said about passenger rail and infrastructure during the campaign?" "Don't you feel that he was somewhat correct in needing to rebuild our infrastructure and focus on things at home?" At this point few would say that what has been stated is an unreasonable goal or say "I think we should take the long distance rail budget and put it towards more foreign aid" so then facts can be presented about passenger numbers, effect on smaller communities with few travel options, and how infrastructure is a national issue and how rebuilding it puts America Back To Work and helps strengthen both the economy and the elements which keep it moving, etc, etc.

By that time, there should be food for thought for someone who might not have given it much thought at all and who would be otherwise inclined to just say "no" to anything other than the budget as presented. This approach works on both people making the sausage as well as those selecting the sausage to send out into the marketplace. You've given them a reason or two to fund passenger rail on terms they can reconcile with their own principles which in turn they can go home to proclaim how they furthered the President's agenda (or in the case of opponents, say they furthered their goals to benefit the American people despite the 'draconian' budget originally presented). Heck, if they get constituent contact which says "thank you for giving me a choice in my transportation options" and they can say they were happy to do so and are proud to have always supported such things as passenger rail, let 'em. They can lie about their support, but as long as it's there and the objective was met, it doesn't really make a difference.


----------



## RSG

Maverickstation said:


> These are very different times from anything else in the past 56, or so years.


Really? Even during the early 70s, when railroads were going bankrupt left and right, oil was cheap, air travel was king and Americans were convinced that if they couldn't drive somewhere, they could always fly there---quite likely via their own car within 30 years? Everyone was convinced that a century-old technology was on its way out and cobbling together Amtrak was the way to put an end to all this silliness about rail travel once and for all and just wind 'er down.

Given just that point in time (even aside from the early Reagan years), I'm perfectly fine living in the current era.


----------



## Don Newcomb

Eric S said:


> Exactly. The budget plans released so far indicate the administration's general philosophy regarding spending and as it pertains to Amtrak, the "improvements" it involves are cutting long distance trains.


I've been listening to various political annalists' comments and the general consensus is that Trump's budget proposal is just so much political posturing and will be DOA in Congress. POTUS does not control the purse strings, Congress does. Trump's budget proposal is just a statement of his political philosophy, nothing more. The more he sends crazy tweets the more Congress may be inclined to ignore him.


----------



## A Voice

Maverickstation said:


> Clearly with the budget proposed there will be some funding provided in the usual give and take of budgets, but there will be cuts, and other reductions


Source please?

You have already determined there will be cuts and tri-weekly trains (even though such an approach failed to produce the expected savings before) from a DOA budget proposal which Congress has hardly begun to even consider. Amtrak doesn't know what its budget will be next year, neither does the administration, Congress, the Department of Transportation, or *anybody* else. With respect, either you are just expressing an opinion as fact without any basis to support your arguments, or you can predict the future. So, again, source please?



> These are very different times from anything else in the past 56, or so years.


What - specifically - is so fundamentally different about 2017 than 1981?


----------



## VentureForth

Watching the freaking out in the thread is hilarious.


----------



## Eric S

Don Newcomb said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The budget plans released so far indicate the administration's general philosophy regarding spending and as it pertains to Amtrak, the "improvements" it involves are cutting long distance trains.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been listening to various political annalists' comments and the general consensus is that Trump's budget proposal is just so much political posturing and will be DOA in Congress. POTUS does not control the purse strings, Congress does. Trump's budget proposal is just a statement of his political philosophy, nothing more. The more he sends crazy tweets the more Congress may be inclined to ignore him.
Click to expand...

Sure. Even in, oh, let's say more normal times, Congress significantly adjusts any administration's budget proposals. And this budget proposal will certainly be adjusted as well - perhaps even largely ignored. My point was not that administration's budget plans will be enacted exactly as presented, but rather that the budget proposal represents the administration's views with regards to Amtrak LD service.


----------



## dlagrua

If we are conducting a trial on this thread, is it not better to wait for the verdict before passing judgement?. I don't know what the future of Amtrak will hold and neither does anyone else on this forum. We can lobby for Amtrak support but congress will ultimately decide the transportation budget.

If Amtrak is covering 94% of its costs then the answer for the fiscally conservative is simple; add 6% to the price of tickets and be done with it. I don't want to keep paying more but I would accept that to preserve whats left of our domestic long distance passenger rail system.


----------



## Carolina Special

If Amtrak could add 6% to their ticket prices they would already be doing that. And I believe it would require a much larger % ticket increase than 6% to break even.


----------



## Ziv

This budget debate has me going back to the same question I have always wondered about.

Even though there is no way to give a 100% accurate answer, what do the more knowledgeable of you think would be the best ways to use more rolling stock/locomotives (over and above the currently long awaited new cars) if the additional funding were found to buy them? Would adding more trains a day on the Silvers return more revenue, or would it be a second daily Empire Builder or a second California Zephyr? If Trump actually rolls over and allows Amtrak funds needed to buy 12 new trains worth of equipment over the next 2 years, where would you get the best bang for your buck?

Where should the money the Feds put into Amtrak go if Amtrak actually looked to approach profitability and the Feds gave them just enough money to take a shot at it? Sorry if this is a stupid or off topic question but I really think a lot of the level of knowledge on this site and would like to know what some of you think would be a good path forward to breaking even and expanding Amtrak, hopefully at the same time.

On edit: Thanks for the links you entered, Philly Amtrak Fan! I am working my way through them. I should have searched a bit better before I asked the question.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ziv said:


> This budget debate has me going back to the same question I have always wondered about.
> 
> Even though there is no way to give a 100% accurate answer, what do the more knowledgeable of you think would be the best ways to use more rolling stock/locomotives (over and above the currently long awaited new cars) if the additional funding were found to buy them? Would adding more trains a day on the Silvers return more revenue, or would it be a second daily Empire Builder or a second California Zephyr? If Trump actually rolls over and allows Amtrak funds needed to buy 12 new trains worth of equipment over the next 2 years, where would you get the best bang for your buck?
> 
> Where should the money the Feds put into Amtrak go if Amtrak actually looked to approach profitability and the Feds gave them just enough money to take a shot at it? Sorry if this is a stupid or off topic question but I really think a lot of the level of knowledge on this site and would like to know what some of you think would be a good path forward to breaking even and expanding Amtrak, hopefully at the same time.


Here's some threads for that purpose for further discussion:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/63749-what-would-you-add/

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/67778-wish-list-for-amtraktrain-service-expansions/

There's probably many others.

That way we can stick to budget and funding at this thread.


----------



## Ryan

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are very different times from anything else in the past 56, or so years.
> 
> 
> 
> What - specifically - is so fundamentally different about 2017 than 1981?
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, this:




We are more polarized as a nation than ever. Our Congress reflects that and makes the "business as usual argument somewhat suspect.

This article (from which the above graphic was taken) is a good read on the topic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good one Ryan!


----------



## Carolina Special

Also no internet, PCs, smart phones or other mobile devices in 1981. Or this board to allow discussions of this type.


----------



## jis

None of this implies that we should accept that there will be cuts definitely this time. That is a defeatist attitude which will get us nowhere.


----------



## Don Newcomb

Carolina Special said:


> Also no internet, PCs, smart phones or other mobile devices in 1981. Or this board to allow discussions of this type.


Usenet Newsgroups started in 1980


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ziv said:


> Where should the money the Feds put into Amtrak go if Amtrak actually looked to approach profitability and the Feds gave them just enough money to take a shot at it? Sorry if this is a stupid or off topic question but I really think a lot of the level of knowledge on this site and would like to know what some of you think would be a good path forward to breaking even and expanding Amtrak, hopefully at the same time.


Where should the money the Feds put into Interstate 10 go if Interstate 10 actually looked to approach profitability and the Feds gave it just enough money to take a shot at it? Here in Texas we've had a lot of attempts at creating new roads to mirror the "everything must earn a profit" gilded age mantra and so far they've all failed. Not in just a little way, but failed so spectacularly that the federal taxpayers who unknowingly funded them have probably lost any chance of recouping their original investment, let alone making any sort of profit.



Don Newcomb said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also no internet, PCs, smart phones or other mobile devices in 1981. Or this board to allow discussions of this type.
> 
> 
> 
> Usenet Newsgroups started in 1980
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point intentionally.


----------



## Carolina Special

The typical person would not have access to the Usenet in 1980. I remember accessing my university mainframe for a simple program in 1978-79 that handled baseball stats. I used punch cards and got a fraction of a second of time on the mainframe!

That was a different time to be sure.


----------



## Don Newcomb

Carolina Special said:


> The typical person would not have access to the Usenet in 1980. I remember accessing my university mainframe for a simple program in 1978-79 that handled baseball stats. I used punch cards and got a fraction of a second of time on the mainframe!
> 
> That was a different time to be sure.


In the mid '70s I was using a HASP network that connected the universities in Florida to submit batch jobs from one site to another. By the mid-'80s I got access to NSFNet. That was about the same time I started using Usenet. There was a time when newsgroup activity went through a very noticeable decline during the Summer, Spring and Christmas academic breaks, when students lost access to their university accounts.


----------



## A Voice

Yes, all these things and many others were different or didn't exist in the early 1980's - but how do they affect the federal budgetary process in general and Amtrak in particular? McDonald's didn't serve breakfast all day back then, but that little bit of trivia has no impact whatsoever on the passage of a bill in Congress.

The lack of internet groups changes the format and accessibility of discussion (forums or websites instead of newsletters, etc.), but that doesn't necessarily mean it affects the tone or outcome of debate (I'm sure there are studies somewhere). A more polarized society and Congress is more pertinent, but even then, on what basis do we conclude it has an overall negative impact on Amtrak legislation? The United States Congress has always had poor party discipline; There are frequently - and remain - a handful of members who vote against their own party and side with the opposition, but often not enough to make a difference. The debates may be more contentious, but a good politician still knows when to compromise.


----------



## dlagrua

Carolina Special said:


> If Amtrak could add 6% to their ticket prices they would already be doing that. And I believe it would require a much larger % ticket increase than 6% to break even.


I am no accountant but please explain the math to me. If Amtrak is able to cover 94% of its expenses that means they are 4% short. Ticket sales are the main source of revenue so if you increase that revenue by 4% it would seem that Amtrak would be operating at or near the break even point. There might be other small revenue sources that factor in but they would probably be insignificant.


----------



## jebr

Well, they're 6% short, not 4%, but even then, whenever fares are raised there's a portion of the ridership that decides that it's too expensive. Here Metro Transit is proposing a 25 cent raise in the bus and light rail fare (in our system, that's roughly a 12.5% increase.) That is expected to drop ridership about 4.7%, so some of that increase is lost because some people will simply find alternate means of transportation. While the exact percentages would be different for Amtrak, the general philosophy would still hold true - increase fares and some people will seek out alternatives.


----------



## BCL

dlagrua said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak could add 6% to their ticket prices they would already be doing that. And I believe it would require a much larger % ticket increase than 6% to break even.
> 
> 
> 
> I am no accountant but please explain the math to me. If Amtrak is able to cover 94% of its expenses that means they are 4% short. Ticket sales are the main source of revenue so if you increase that revenue by 4% it would seem that Amtrak would be operating at or near the break even point. There might be other small revenue sources that factor in but they would probably be insignificant.
Click to expand...

It's not simply accounting, but economics - namely supply and demand. Increasing the price will obviously lessen demand.

Every form of transportation receives some sort of government subsidy. Amtrak's is just more direct, which bus and air travel are often indirect.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> None of this implies that we should accept that there will be cuts definitely this time. That is a defeatist attitude which will get us nowhere.


Absolutely, 100% in agreement.


----------



## seat38a

jis said:


> None of this implies that we should accept that there will be cuts definitely this time. That is a defeatist attitude which will get us nowhere.


But at the same time, you have to face facts that there is a real possibility that it could happen. As Ryan pointed out, things are different than 1981 and last November, people didn't think Donald Trump would get elected but now he is sitting in the White House. Democrats thought 2016 was hunky dory for them like 2008 and 2012 and they paid a heavy price. I'm not being a defeatist, just a realist. What I've learned in 2016 is that what worked before over and over again will have no guarantees it will work going forward and to the accept the fact that the worst could happen.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

I still believe that the most likely outcome is finding at or near current levels. The loss of some or all LDs has become more likely, but I still doubt it will happen. This budget proposal at least provides corridor funding, while some in the past did not. In my opinion, the worst thing about this budget proposal is that it shows that Trump will most likely not back up his campaign promise of improving passenger rail infrastructure and that Amtrak funding levels will not increase. I did not support Trump in the election, but I was at least hopeful that he would support passenger rail more than a normal Republican president.


----------



## Ryan

seat38a said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this implies that we should accept that there will be cuts definitely this time. That is a defeatist attitude which will get us nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> But at the same time, you have to face facts that there is a real possibility that it could happen. As Ryan pointed out, things are different than 1981 and last November, people didn't think Donald Trump would get elected but now he is sitting in the White House. Democrats thought 2016 was hunky dory for them like 2008 and 2012 and they paid a heavy price. I'm not being a defeatist, just a realist. What I've learned in 2016 is that what worked before over and over again will have no guarantees it will work going forward and to the accept the fact that the worst could happen.
Click to expand...

Well yes. What that means is that one can't sit on their hands an assume that all will work out as it has in the past. It should be all hands on deck to demand of our representatives that they not go along with these cuts.


----------



## Carolina Special

Amtrak includes other revenue along with ticket revenue to reach the 94% coverage of operating costs in FY16, according to the 11/17/16 press release. Increasing ticket sales alone by 6% won't be enough.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The worst thing about this budget proposal is that it shows that Trump will most likely not back up his campaign promise of improving passenger rail infrastructure and that Amtrak funding levels will not increase.


Do you have a date or location or quote of Trump promising to improve our national passenger rail system or to increase Amtrak funding levels? I heard him talk about privatizing the NEC and admiring high speed rail in other countries but that's about it. When people on the forum started claiming he would support and improve Amtrak I never understood where they were getting that from. To this day I've never seen a quote or video or even a description of time when Trump actually said any of that.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Devil's Advocate said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst thing about this budget proposal is that it shows that Trump will most likely not back up his campaign promise of improving passenger rail infrastructure and that Amtrak funding levels will not increase.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a date or location or quote of Trump promising to improve our national passenger rail system or to increase Amtrak funding levels? I heard him talk about privatizing the NEC and admiring high speed rail in other countries but that's about it. When people on the forum started claiming he would support and improve Amtrak I never understood where they were getting that from. To this day I've never seen a quote or video or even a description of time when Trump actually said any of that.
Click to expand...

No, he never directly said that he would support Amtrak. He simply said that he wanted high speed trains and mentioned rail infrastructure multiple times, including his inauguration. I thought there may be a good chance of building high speed rail separately from Amtrak, just like California High Speed Rail. If he wanted to replace Amtrak with a new government funded corporation that ran high speed trains to the places Amtrak currently serves, I would have been very happy with that. I preferred politicians who voiced their support for Amtrak, but thought he would be better than many Republicans who don't support any Amtrak funding. Also, when did he say he wanted to privatize the NEC?


----------



## jis

Improving rail infrastructure does not necessarily mean it includes infrastructure for passenger rail either.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> No, he never directly said that he would support Amtrak. He simply said that he wanted high speed trains and mentioned rail infrastructure multiple times, including his inauguration.


So far as I can tell, a single publicly funded privately operated high speed link from downtown to an airport would more than meet every single promise Trump ever made about passenger rail.



brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I thought there may be a good chance of building high speed rail separately from Amtrak, just like California High Speed Rail.


The only thing the Trump administration has done with CA's HSR is to further stall and delay it. This was done at the request of the staunchly anti-rail wing of the GOP that represents rich and rural folks in CA. With a few more attacks they might be able to stall it long enough to simply run out of money and momentum.



brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> When did he say he wanted to privatize the NEC?


I couldn't find it quickly but privatizing Amtrak and scuttling CA's HSR plan have been on the GOP's roadmap for years. Trump is already on the record for wanting to privatize the FAA and several other quasi-governmental businesses so it fits right in with the current initiatives. In the grand scheme of things it's not that dissimilar to what Russia has repeatedly experienced. Public agencies and infrastructure are dismantled and divided up so they can be handed out as rewards to friends and associates. Mostly in the form of businesses that are privatized for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Devil's Advocate said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he never directly said that he would support Amtrak. He simply said that he wanted high speed trains and mentioned rail infrastructure multiple times, including his inauguration.
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I can tell, a single publicly funded privately operated high speed link from downtown to an airport would more than meet every single promise Trump ever made about passenger rail.
> 
> 
> 
> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought there may be a good chance of building high speed rail separately from Amtrak, just like California High Speed Rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing the Trump administration has done with CA's HSR is to further stall and delay it. This was done at the request of the staunchly anti-rail wing of the GOP that represents rich and rural folks in CA. With a few more attacks they might be able to stall it long enough to simply run out of money and momentum.
> 
> 
> 
> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did he say he wanted to privatize the NEC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't find it quickly but privatizing Amtrak and scuttling CA's HSR plan have been on the GOP's roadmap for years. Trump is already on the record for wanting to privatize the FAA and several other quasi-governmental businesses so it fits right in with the current initiatives. In the grand scheme of things it's not that dissimilar to what Russia has repeatedly experienced. Public agencies and infrastructure are dismantled and divided up so they can be handed out as rewards to friends and associates. Mostly in the form of businesses that are privatized for pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess one line could theoretically fulfill every promise he has made about passenger rail. However, his mocking of the US railroad system when compared to China hinted that he would be supportive of larger intercity projects, including Amtrak. While his proposed budget may not prove his campaign statements as lies, at the very least it makes them misleading. As to the California High Speed Rail, I fully agree that he will now attempt to stop it rather than support it. His budget makes it clear that he has no interest in supporting passenger rail; I was simply stating that it is disappointing considering that his earlier statements on the matter appeared at least somewhat supportive.

As to the NEC privatization, I know that Republicans are generally supportive of the concept but I have never heard Trump comment on the subject. As explained in the previous paragraph, his earlier speeches gave some hope that he may stray from typical Republican ideologies. I didn't know about the FAA privatization, but that along with the Trump administration's now expressed views on Amtrak funding certainly hint that NEC privatization could be attempted in the future.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> Improving rail infrastructure does not necessarily mean it includes infrastructure for passenger rail either.


Yes, but his comments about the American rail system being weak when compared to China certainly hinted that he was referring to passenger rail. The American freight railroad system is one of the largest in the world and serves most of the country very well. Many countries frequently cited as having excellent rail systems have less advanced freight railroads than the US. Honestly, at this point I believe his comments about rail were just lies to get elected. I doubt he will prove to be an advocate of rail transportation, whether it be for freight or passengers.


----------



## Rover

Devil's Advocate said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst thing about this budget proposal is that it shows that Trump will most likely not back up his campaign promise of improving passenger rail infrastructure and that Amtrak funding levels will not increase.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a date or location or quote of Trump promising to improve our national passenger rail system or to increase Amtrak funding levels? I heard him talk about privatizing the NEC and admiring high speed rail in other countries but that's about it. When people on the forum started claiming he would support and improve Amtrak I never understood where they were getting that from. To this day I've never seen a quote or video or even a description of time when Trump actually said any of that.
Click to expand...

The only way I see Donald Trump supporting Passenger rail, is for him to get Congress to authorize new exclusive LD Passenger rail routes that have Trump Hotels near all of the new stations...

Now I know that's a real pipe dream...but hey, The Donald dreams Big..


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improving rail infrastructure does not necessarily mean it includes infrastructure for passenger rail either.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but his comments about the American rail system being weak when compared to China certainly hinted that he was referring to passenger rail. The American freight railroad system is one of the largest in the world and serves most of the country very well. Many countries frequently cited as having excellent rail systems have less advanced freight railroads than the US. Honestly, at this point I believe his comments about rail were just lies to get elected. I doubt he will prove to be an advocate of rail transportation, whether it be for freight or passengers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He said all sorts of things during his campaign. One stray statement from him is not indicative of any policy intentions at all IMHO.


----------



## RSG

dlagrua said:


> I am no accountant but please explain the math to me. If Amtrak is able to cover 94% of its expenses that means they are 4% short. Ticket sales are the main source of revenue so if you increase that revenue by 4% it would seem that Amtrak would be operating at or near the break even point. There might be other small revenue sources that factor in but they would probably be insignificant.


Basically it's the difference between "net" and "gross", so that the question becomes "By how much do I have to increase my gross to result in a 6% increase in my net?" This is an eternal question in business and many businesses who attempt to increase their net by adjusting their gross often fail a few times over before actually getting the increase in the net. To extrapolate that to Amtrak, it's not as simple as just raising ticket prices---by any amount.


----------



## RSG

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I doubt he will prove to be an advocate of rail transportation, whether it be for freight or passengers.


He'll be an advocate for the freight part of it, once he figures out how things get from Point A to Point B. The problem I have with elected officials (and the wonks that write things like budgets) who've spent most of their time in large urban areas is that they have no clue how goods get on shelves or products get to or from factories. In North America, that happens via truck, train, or plane. And since coal, broccoli, and cans of soup aren't going to fly to their final destinations that means it mostly goes on highways and railways. One huge derailment (or several smaller ones) due to degrading track and another bridge collapse like the I-35W Mississippi River one and all the penny-pinching as it relates to that part of transportation will go out the window fast. Whether or how it will benefit Amtrak is an another question.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?


----------



## JoeBas

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Yeah, I guess one line could theoretically fulfill every promise he has made about passenger rail. However, his mocking of the US railroad system when compared to China hinted that he would be supportive of larger intercity projects, including Amtrak. While his proposed budget may not prove his campaign statements as lies, at the very least it makes them misleading.


Given that you can't even believe something he comes out and bald-faced tells or SCREAMS at you (Believe me!), I find it amusing that people are still trying to put stock in something he "hints" at, or reads his tea leaves.

As for his campaign statements being lies... color me surprised... :huh:


----------



## AmtrakBlue

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?


And? Do you think Moorman can just say no and it won't happen?


----------



## A Voice

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?


Wouldn't that be a bit like you or I standing at the top of a waterfall, and saying to the water "No, you can't go over the edge".


----------



## Carolina Special

According to the Amtrak FY 2016 Factsheet, LD passengers make up 15% of total ridership. NEC and State-Supported Services make up the other 85%. LD does make up 22% of total ticket revenue.

From the Republican budget standpoint, they're focusing on the remaining 85% of the business after LD is cut. Which makes sense from their perspective, as those lines are more efficient at carrying passengers.

To attack the LD cuts, you need to explain how this will damage the remaining business if the nationwide network is ended. If anyone has good data on cross traffic between LD and the NEC/State-Supported Services, here is a good chance to use it. It has been awhile since the air traffic was shutdown after 9/11, but that's another argument for leaving an LD network.

Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Carolina Special said:


> Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.


I remember feeling the same way. Then I saw actual footage of anti-rail protests across the country and they were filled with signs and people saying things like "YOUR CHOO-CHOO TRAIN IS DUMB!" and "TRAINS ARE FOR TOYS!" and realized that logic and reason had never entered into the anti-train thought process. So far as I can tell the current anti-rail movement was founded on little more than a emotional overreaction to hearing that the previous president supported passenger rail enough to increase funding for it.


----------



## Maverickstation

Here is an interesting story about the proposed budget and the potential demise of the LD network, and how it would effect Ohio.

IF, and again I say IF all LD trains were to be cut, Ohio would loose all of it's Amtrak service.

Given that the states near Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, etc. all pay for various regional Amtrak routes, what on the

green earth is wrong with a populas state like Ohio in not fuding some regional service.

I know there have been all sorts of proposals for intra-city service in Ohio, but they are not doing anything right now.

It is often noted how some Ohio cities host their trains during nocturnal hours, no great shock given these are all LD trains

focused on their end points.

If anything this budget proposal should spark some much needed discussion in states like Ohio.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2017/03/19/Trump-budget-would-halt-Amtrak-service-in-Ohio.html

Ken


----------



## jis

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?


If Congress does not give Wick the money to run them then Wick will not have a choice to say "No". He works within the financial constraints set by Congress. Let us not launch ourselves off into fantasy la-la land.



Maverickstation said:


> IF, and again I say IF all LD trains were to be cut, Ohio would loose all of it's Amtrak service.
> 
> Given that the states near Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, etc. all pay for various regional Amtrak routes,


If you include Commuter routes then the only neighboring state of Ohio that does not fund at least to some extent any passenger train service apparently is Kentucky. Even West Virginia has agreements with MARC and targeted capital funding to run its train to Martinsburg. Pennsylvania of course funds all sorts of train service including Amtrak Keystone and Pennsylvanian. And you have already mentioned Michigan, Indiana and Illinois.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Trump fascinates me, as I said before. He manages to convince all of his supporters that he is going to do exactly what he wants. He also seems to manage to convince people who would accept the public label of a "Trump Detractor" that he is going to do exactly, precisely, and completely everything they DON'T want. Despite the fact that I have seen time and time again that in many cases both of those categories often want exactly the same thing. That is, Supporter says "Trump is going to support X extensively!" and detractor says "Trump is planning to completely eliminate X." Obviously at least one of these has to be untrue. Or ones idea of support is another's idea of destruction (also possible). Or both, or neither. Actually, from what I can discern, all of these are true, across almost all of these issues, to some extent or another. The only thing that is certain in every case is that the supporter supports, and the detractor detracts, often with neither having any concrete knowledge of any of the issues involved, or what Trump's position might be (if, in fact, he has one!).

Furthermore, people don't seem to understand how much power the president has. (and with that statement, I am talking about the president as a concept, not any specific example of one.) The answer is their level of power is highly variable. With strong support from the majority party, strong support from the courts, and a solid amount of support from the general population, the President can be very powerful. With no support from the majority party, or limited support from them, limited support from the courts, and hard to determine support from the general population, or active lack of support (Think Bush Jr. in his last year in office, for example.) the president's power can be nearly nonexistent. Where in that graph Trump resides is hard to determine, and is based on who you listen to- from what I can tell, all of them (irrespective of support) are either spinning like George Washington in his grave (whether he would support Trump or not, he'd hate how divided we are as a nation), or outright lying. However, supporters tend to think he his highly regarded, and detractors are convinced everyone hates him.

Speaking for myself, I'm not sure what to think of him personally, but I dislike the state his election has put the nation, and more importantly my family dinner table. Why? Because he is the only bloody thing I ever hear about. What he has done, will do, might do, could do, can't do, should do, shouldn't do. Also what he obviously thinks or doesn't think, which irritates the hell out of me (The whole point of this rant is that he does an excellent job, particularly, of hiding what he is thinking and what his intentions are!). I'm tired of it, because its just a lot of ranting or raving noise with nothing accomplished. Every headline is "HERE IS WHAT TRUMP MIGHT DO!" Let me add one: Trump might dress up a baseball bat in a Sombrero and a Tutu, and then re-enact the boat scene from Phantom Of The Opera, in his underwear. CHRISTINE!! I mean, its extremely improbable, but he _might_. Garsh, Mickey! (impart Goofy accent, just so you know this is a joke, also I'm making fun of news agencies excessive use of nullifying words in headlines, not suggesting Trump is particularly prone to acting like Jim Carey).

I'm not criticizing Trump here. The fact of the matter is, the goodness or badness of what he wants to do depends mightily on who you are, where you stand in life, where you come from, and the way movements in the economy effect you personally. So whether he is good or bad depends on his effectiveness, and he is definitely being ideologically blocked by his detractors. Which is the same basic position Obama was in around this time, if you happen to recall, albeit with slightly less blather. (very slightly)

However, I suggest all of those who want support or detract, evaluate what he is doing. For example, the budget proposed absolutely is set up such that if it particularly goes into effect, Amtrak's long distance network will be de-funded. That's a fact. Whether this is his intention or not, whether this is meant to be a baseline for negotiation, and whether you like or dislike the idea proposed, those are all opinions. And all of your opinions are open to yourself.

But I suggest the lot of you dig out all the indisputable facts you can find (not easy, I know, in this world of blather bombardment), including exactly what the programs he is funding or defunding ACTUALLY DO, rather than their naming scheme, and then decide whether or not you like it. Just as an example: The EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency, has parts that do stuff for protecting the environment (I've seen bits and bobs that do directly) however, I think the part I have had the most dealing with should be broken off into something called the BSA- BANANA Support Agency. Because the main function of that part of the agency seems to be providing a springboard anti-build for NIMBYs and BANANAs to object to things over.

Oh, also stop assuming anything makes sense. That's not a Trump thing, though. My enlightenment in the world came from the following understanding: Rarely does anything make sense, never blame malice for what can adequately be explained by stupidity, unless the stupidity has the precision of a Swiss watch, in which case it is definitely malice.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?
> 
> 
> 
> If Congress does not give Wick the money to run them then Wick will not have a choice to say "No". He works within the financial constraints set by Congress. Let us not launch ourselves off into fantasy la-la land.
> 
> 
> Maverickstation said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF, and again I say IF all LD trains were to be cut, Ohio would loose all of it's Amtrak service.
> 
> Given that the states near Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, etc. all pay for various regional Amtrak routes,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you include Commuter routes then the only neighboring state of Ohio that does not fund at least to some extent any passenger train service apparently is Kentucky. Even West Virginia has agreements with MARC and targeted capital funding to run its train to Martinsburg. Pennsylvania of course funds all sorts of train service including Amtrak Keystone and Pennsylvanian. And you have already mentioned Michigan, Indiana and Illinois.
Click to expand...

If you were to include any rail transportation, even Ohio does have non-Amtrak passenger trains. Cleveland has two light rail lines and a rapid transit line; Cincinnati has a streetcar. While I do not know for sure, I would assume the state contributes some money to these systems, especially the one in Cleveland. This is not to say they would fund Amtrak, especially with the current government. It is very unfortunate that a populated northern state has such little passenger rail infrastructure, but the government more closely resembles a deep southern state such as Georgia than an industrialized northern state.


----------



## jis

I was not including non-main line passenger service (subways and LRT) on purpose, since that is an entirely different can of worms dealing with a different bureaucracy. but yes, what you say is true.

Maybe a previously industrialized state that has lost most of its industry at the core looks more like a southern state.I am not sure if that or its reverse actually works. But just a thought to consider.


----------



## tonys96

My bottom line opinion is this: Amtrak LD travel is soon going to be a thing of the past. And that is a shame. I need to try to find a way/time to burn my remaining points quickly. Sadly.


----------



## Ziv

GML, I think your post is really interesting. I was a Scott Walker guy before I ended up reluctantly pushing the button for Trump. I think he is a bully and a boor. And if Gorsuch gets onto the court, I will probably never regret my vote. But Trump is not a conservative, nor is he a libertarian. He is a self centered business troll who uses populist techniques to build a following. And that is fascinating.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Trump fascinates me, as I said before. .


----------



## Rover

If Trump could somehow "catch" LD train fever, then maybe he could see how a great federal works project would be worthy to provide safe and dependable rail passage through the Rockies and the Sierras, ala the Swiss's Gotthard Base Tunnel project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ziv said:


> GML, I think your post is really interesting. I was a Scott Walker guy before I ended up reluctantly pushing the button for Trump. I think he is a bully and a boor. And if Gorsuch gets onto the court, I will probably never regret my vote. But Trump is not a conservative, nor is he a libertarian. He is a self centered business troll who uses populist techniques to build a following. And that is fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump fascinates me, as I said before. .
Click to expand...

I find the irrational exuberance and cognitive dissonance of pro-rail conservatives equally fascinating.


----------



## jis

Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.


----------



## Bob Dylan

"..The Answer my friend is Blowin' in the Wind.."


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.


Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.


----------



## jis

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.
Click to expand...

True. But we can say for sure is that passenger rail is probably not as important to them as some other issues.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise voters neither support nor oppose a candidate based on a single issue.
Click to expand...

It's not the vote itself that's confusing. It's the irrational resistance to accepting and acknowledging the logical repercussions and opportunity cost of choosing one issue over another.


----------



## Ziv

I can't speak for other pro-Amtrak conservatives, but for me, Amtrak is nice, but it isn't in the top 5 of issues that shape my vote. Probably not even in the top 10.

I like train travel. I love the US and what it has been and could be. No tooth fairy involved. Just pragmatic consideration of which candidate I will agree with more. Trump is doing things I agree with around 60-70% of the time, and I agree with him on most of the bigger issues.

And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.



jis said:


> Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.


----------



## CCC1007

Ziv said:


> I can't speak for other pro-Amtrak conservatives, but for me, Amtrak is nice, but it isn't in the top 5 of issues that shape my vote. Probably not even in the top 10.
> 
> I like train travel. I love the US and what it has been and could be. No tooth fairy involved. Just pragmatic consideration of which candidate I will agree with more. Trump is doing things I agree with around 60-70% of the time, and I agree with him on most of the bigger issues.
> 
> And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise. Specially those that forever support anti-Rail candidates. Clearly they also believe in tooth fairy.
Click to expand...

Where is that like button we've been asking for???


----------



## ainamkartma

Devil's Advocate said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember feeling the same way. Then I saw actual footage of anti-rail protests across the country and they were filled with signs and people saying things like "YOUR CHOO-CHOO TRAIN IS DUMB!" and "TRAINS ARE FOR TOYS!" and realized that logic and reason had never entered into the anti-train thought process. So far as I can tell the current anti-rail movement was founded on little more than a emotional overreaction to hearing that the previous president supported passenger rail enough to increase funding for it.
Click to expand...

Railroads, and especially Amtrak, are UNIONIZED.

That's like a red flag to a Republican bull.


----------



## neroden

Carolina Special said:


> According to the Amtrak FY 2016 Factsheet, LD passengers make up 15% of total ridership. NEC and State-Supported Services make up the other 85%. LD does make up 22% of total ticket revenue.
> 
> From the Republican budget standpoint, they're focusing on the remaining 85% of the business after LD is cut. Which makes sense from their perspective, as those lines are more efficient at carrying passengers.
> 
> To attack the LD cuts, you need to explain how this will damage the remaining business if the nationwide network is ended


(1) Practically the entire cost of the nationwide network is fixed, unavoidable overhead; it'll just be transferred to the NEC costs. I've pointed this out repeatedly. Total savings of cutting the actual money-losing parts of the national network: less than $59.8 million. If you cut the whole national network, you'd only save $26.3 million, because you'd be cutting trains which make a gross profit!(2) You seriously want to tick off the Senators from Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, Utah New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, etc.? (To specifically pick states known for Senatorial support for their Amtrak services and unlikely to be disregarded as "always vote Democratic") That's what you do by cutting their services.

Oh, and to be quite specific, at this point all the single-level routes except the Cardinal are profitable before overhead, and so is the Auto Train. What's left of trains losing money before overhead is state corridors (not going anywhere), and Superliner trains; and of those, almost all the the actual "money losing" comes from the Zephyr, Chief, and Sunset (amounting to about $33.6 million out of the previously mentioned $59.8 million). The Zephyr and Chief have proven to be politically untouchable.

The thing is that the fake budget proposed by the Trump administration is a joke. Trump almost certainly didn't even *read* it; it was Xeroxed off some Heritage Foundation wishlist. The committee chairs are already saying it's dead on arrival in Congress.

If enacted (which it won't be), the two most likely outcomes are:

(1) Some shenanigans are pulled to cover the funding shortage, via borrowing or FRA grants or something; maybe one train gets cut as a showy sacrifice (probably the Sunset).

(2) Upon adding $507 million in overhead to the NEC costs, with no Congressional funding, Amtrak announces that they are about to run out of cash. Funding is restored.


----------



## neroden

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> If you were to include any rail transportation, even Ohio does have non-Amtrak passenger trains. Cleveland has two light rail lines and a rapid transit line; Cincinnati has a streetcar. While I do not know for sure, I would assume the state contributes some money to these systems, especially the one in Cleveland.


You'd guess wrong. They used to but in recent years both systems have been locally funded due to the state government hating its cities. :sigh:

I don't think that the state government hating its cities is a sustainable phenomenon. It's more possible in Ohio, with an unusually high rural share of population, than in many places, but it's still not viable.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump wants to cut the long-distance trains, how much do you want to bet that Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is going to say no?
> 
> 
> 
> If Congress does not give Wick the money to run them then Wick will not have a choice to say "No". He works within the financial constraints set by Congress. Let us not launch ourselves off into fantasy la-la land.
Click to expand...

Actually, he'll just run 'em anyway. Unlike some, he can read a profit and loss statement. As I've pointed out, the single-level trains are *profitable*. And unlike previous years, nobody's threatening to shut down the NEC, which means the overhead isn't going anywhere.

Amtrak is capable of borrowing money now. We've been here before...

One scenario is that he will threaten train-offs if the states don't pony up money. Likely result if that happens:

-- States and/or cities along the routes contribute enough to pay for the avoidable losses and *some* of the overhead on nearly all the routes

-- It's just a bluff when it comes to the profitable-before-overhead trains, because Wick isn't stupid

-- Maybe we lose the Sunset Limited (which seems to lack a constituency) as a sacrifice to appease Congress


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ziv said:


> I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.


What rational coherent reason do you have for believing this? What part of the modern conservative orthodoxy includes billion dollar taxpayer funded passenger rail networks like Amtrak?


----------



## BCL

ainamkartma said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to think like an opponent of LD rail, however hard that may be, and you'll be more effective at countering their arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember feeling the same way. Then I saw actual footage of anti-rail protests across the country and they were filled with signs and people saying things like "YOUR CHOO-CHOO TRAIN IS DUMB!" and "TRAINS ARE FOR TOYS!" and realized that logic and reason had never entered into the anti-train thought process. So far as I can tell the current anti-rail movement was founded on little more than a emotional overreaction to hearing that the previous president supported passenger rail enough to increase funding for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Railroads, and especially Amtrak, are UNIONIZED.
> 
> That's like a red flag to a Republican bull.
Click to expand...

So are most law enforcement agencies and/or prison staff.


----------



## Carolina Special

From the March 2017 Trains magazine, in article authored by Don Phillips, pages 10-11, Wick Moorman was quoted as "long-distance trains lose money. They lose a significant amount of money". He goes on to say the growing part of the business is the state-supported services.

Not a helpful comment for LD trains.


----------



## Ziv

Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?

You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.

Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.

And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.

https://www.daines.senate.gov/news/press-releases/daines-reaffirms-importance-of-passenger-rail-to-montana



Devil's Advocate said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in the years to come we will see Amtrak funded at approximately the same level we have seen up to now.
> 
> 
> 
> What rational coherent reason do you have for believing this? What part of the modern conservative orthodoxy includes billion dollar taxpayer funded passenger rail networks like Amtrak?
Click to expand...


----------



## neroden

Carolina Special said:


> From the March 2017 Trains magazine, in article authored by Don Phillips, pages 10-11, Wick Moorman was quoted as "long-distance trains lose money. They lose a significant amount of money". He goes on to say the growing part of the business is the state-supported services.
> 
> Not a helpful comment for LD trains.


Someone at NARP needs to talk to him and show him the reality, 'cause that's simply wrong about the Eastern trains.

Get me an appointment with him, I'll do it. He should also know what a mess Amtrak's accounting is.

I sure hope he isn't fooled by Amtrak's "fully allocated" statements; he wouldn't have tolerated that sort of accounting nonsense at Norfolk Southern.

I have been saying for *years* that this situation needs to be emphasized -- the fact that nearly all of Amtrak's federal subsidy is going to support fixed overhead, i.e. operating the trains makes money now -- and yet it still isn't a messaging priority of NARP. It's very dangerous if we end up with Amtrak management believing their own doctored accounting. Boardman knew better (we found that out in his Congressional presentation where he displayed direct-costs numbers).

'Course, maybe Moorman is just trying to get stable state support for the long-distance trains, which would be a good thing given the unreliability of the federal government. But it's counterproductive to make false claims that they "lose lots of money". Most of the Eastern trains are profitable before overhead (exception is the Cardinal and only because it's 3 a week). The avoidable costs of the Coast Starlight appear to be under $3 million per year.

You can't just cut the reservations system or shut down Beech Grove. Those costs don't go away when you discontinue one train, or a dozen trains -- only if you shut down everything including the NEC. Those "allocated" costs create the phony "significant losses" assigned to the long-distance trains.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?
> 
> You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.
> 
> Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.
> 
> And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.


While I have no rational way of coming to that conclusion, it certainly is one hypothesis that is not contrary to the facts observed so far. But as usual most of the consequential part of the hypothesis is still out in the future, so we will see.

Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.


What I find interesting is the rumor that the administration is willing to accept an_ operating subsidy_ for Amtrak of up to $250 million. More important than the number, arguably, is that if true it shows a willingness to compromise (which really shouldn't be a surprise). Further, if that is actually the _operating_ portion of the subsidy, it's still more interesting as that is a ballpark figure for Amtrak's "adjusted operating loss" for the past few years (be careful using that number); Of course, an appropriation for capital (or what we can 'pretend' is a capital expense, possibly) in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion is also necessary. A total budget of $250 million would be a shutdown budget (for everything - including Acela) and we know that's not happening, but that number for operations theoretically preserves the national network as it now exists.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

The way things are going we may have a new administration soon and this budget will have very little bearing on anything.


----------



## jis

The first budget draft presented by a President seldom has much bearing on anything that comes out of the other end of the sausage factory, if anything comes out that is.


----------



## leacrane

I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

leacrane said:


> I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.


I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.

The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.

Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.

Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.

Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.

When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.

If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how important Amtrak is to small states? And how important their representatives and senators feel that Amtrak is to their constituents? Here is an article in which Montana's junior senator ® tries to convince Amtrak to add a stop in Montana. Do you think this GOP senator is going to defund Amtrak when his constituents are blasting his office email system asking for more Amtrak?
> 
> You are mistaking the Heritage talking points Trump used for his budget request for what he really wants. The two aren't quite the same. Trump has dropped a Heritage foundation budget on the budget process because it is useful for Trump in his effort to negotiate for reduced spending in some areas and increase funding in others. Trumps budget is NOT exactly what he wants. It is what he thinks is most likely to GET HIM what he wants. Trump negotiates like a crafty business man, not like most politicians.
> 
> Read his book. Until you do, you won't understand Trump.
> 
> And that having been said, I am not positive that Trump really cares one way or the other about Amtrak. It doesn't matter if he does in the end. It only matters that most Dems and a substantial minority of the GOP DEFINITELY WANT Amtrak in their states to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> While I have no rational way of coming to that conclusion, it certainly is one hypothesis that is not contrary to the facts observed so far. But as usual most of the consequential part of the hypothesis is still out in the future, so we will see.
> 
> Meanwhile, I am happy to hold out hope that this sort of a hypothesis will come true and keep fighting to make sure that we have the ducks lined up properly to facilitate the desired outcome of such. That is the best one can do at present, purely from a pragmatic perspective. The situation that we are in is what it is. The thing is to figure out a path given the constraints to the desired outcome.
Click to expand...

This is in line with what a friend of mine suggested (and indeed that I've observed as well): Trump wanted a defense spending bump and presumably didn't want to cut NASA (since let's face it, someone at NASA can tease the idea of his name going on a plaque on Mars or using spinoff tech from the mission to open up the Trump Interstellar Hotel). So, Heritage did a "round up the usual suspects" budget to balance out those cuts but a lot of the usual right-wing bait items are items that can also be safely traded away.


----------



## seat38a

WoodyinNYC said:


> leacrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.
> 
> The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.
> 
> Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.
> 
> Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.
> 
> Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.
> 
> When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.
> 
> If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.
> 
> The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.
Click to expand...

I'll believe "*Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour,*" when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

seat38a said:


> I'll believe "*Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour,*" when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?


Does the introduction of Acela's (2000) count as "recent"?

Like it or not, Amtrak has much more motivation to improve service on the huge money making (if not profitable then from a ridership/revenue standpoint) than they do for Viewliner II's and Superliner IIi's (or the replacement for Superliners) to use on LD routes that aren't as popular or make nearly as much money. And it's not pitting sides here. Amtrak covers 94% of operating costs through ticket sales. If the Avelia Liberty allows them to sell more seats then more money comes in and that 94% becomes closer to if not at or higher than 100%.


----------



## A Voice

leacrane said:


> However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.


A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) *isn't* a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.

Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.



WoodyinNYC said:


> leacrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> I take your point. I'd keep Food Stamps, or Obamacare, over LD trains if I had to make that hard choice. But that isn't the only choice: How about restoring the estate tax so that spoiled brats like the Koch Brothers would pay a fair share for running the country when they inherit a $30 Billion oil company from their daddy.
> 
> The steady drumbeat of propaganda from the tax-avoiders is that this country is somehow short of funds. Nonsense. We've had a lousy economic policy under Bush and Obama. But if we still have money to prepare to invade more Middle Eastern countries or build another $11 Billion aircraft carrier or cut taxes on the richest among us, then surely we can afford to invest more in passenger rail.
> 
> Meanwhile I have not signed on to support losing money forever. Over the past 15 years or so -- following the introduction of the Acela as a turning point -- Amtrak has gotten better. More passengers, more revenue, flat or lower losses, better farebox recovery, even better On Time Performance and customer satisfaction scores. Amtrak is a turnaround business story, but it needs more investment to keep getting better.
> 
> Over the past 10 years or so -- following the windfall investment from the Stimulus -- Amtrak has gotten better even faster, with upgrades to the infrastructure and especially to its fleet. Almost 100 wrecked cars resting at Beech Grove maintenance center were rescued, rehabbed, and put back to work on the tracks. New electric locomotives on the NEC. New diesels for the Midwest and California corridors. Four more Talgo trainsets. And a small order for new baggage cars, diners, and sleepers for the Eastern long distance trains, as well as a small order for bi-level coaches for the Midwest corridors; both orders have missed many deadlines, but that doesn't seem to be Amtrak's fault, and eventually the new cars will arrive. Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour.
> 
> Before the end of this year, we should see the biggest Stimulus rail projects completed. By this time next year, Amtrak ridership could be up 500,000 riders from the handful of upgraded corridors, especially the showcase project St Louis-CHI, but also Detroit-CHI, Seattle-Portland, Charlotte-Raleigh, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield-Vermont, and a stretch of tracks south and west of Albany. Together these projects will improve ridership totals and revenues, but also improve On Time Performance and average speed for Amtrak trains.
> 
> When Amtrak grows, it benefits more riders while reducing its 'costs per' -- costs per passenger, cost per train, costs per hour, costs per dollar of revenue, etc. More investment leading to more growth can fix most of Amtrak's problems and start to reduce its losses every year.
> 
> If Congress would appropriate $4 Billion a year for capital investment as Obama repeatedly requested, we could begin work on one or two more corridor upgrades every year. Consider St Paul-CHI, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-CHI, Philly-Pittsburgh, Omaha-Des Moines-Quad Cities-CHI, Memphis-CHI, Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mobile, Springfield-Worcester-Boston, and others. Upgraded corridors greatly help the Long Distance trains as well. And Amtrak needs large new orders for both single-level and bi-level coaches and other cars for renewing and expanding its fleet.
> 
> The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.
Click to expand...

I might take issue with a few of your minor points and examples, but overall I completely agree. Well said.



seat38a said:


> I'll believe "*Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour,*" when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?


I've said this before, but if the Avelia Liberty (Acela II) order goes even remotely like CAF or Nippon-Sharyo, things will get interesting when leases expire on the current Acela trainsets if the replacements have not yet arrived.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Like it or not, Amtrak has much more motivation to improve service on the huge money making (if not profitable then from a ridership/revenue standpoint) than they do for Viewliner II's and Superliner IIi's (or the replacement for Superliners) to use on LD routes that aren't as popular or make nearly as much money. And it's not pitting sides here. Amtrak covers 94% of operating costs through ticket sales. If the Avelia Liberty allows them to sell more seats then more money comes in and that 94% becomes closer to if not at or higher than 100%


You are correct. We need to be careful with that "94%" number, though. As already pointed out, it (unfortunately) doesn't mean a modest increase in fares would put Amtrak at the break even point, free of required subsidies.


----------



## jis

seat38a said:


> I'll believe "*Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour,*" when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?


Do you then also believe that the ACS-64 order which has just been successfully completed is not an Amtrak order? Whose order was it then?


----------



## RampWidget

Amtrak is an easy target because it is presented and thought of in our national transportation policy (unjustly, IMO) as a "Subsidy" budget item. OTOH, expenditures costing billions of dollars such as deepening port channels by the Army Corps of Engineers and improving the Interstate Highway system are seen as necessary public "investments".

In reality, as others here have pointed out, no other form of transportation is profitable if it were 100% independent of Government funding (with the possible exception of freight rail in the US).

I recall a valuable piece of perspective that was taught in a Highway Engineering class in my undergraduate days: The average thickness of an Interstate highway concrete slab is eleven inches. If that highway were to be used only by automobiles, the slab would only need to be one inch thick. Tax dollars pay for the extra ten inches in the Interstate as a hidden subsidy to the trucking industry. And no, despite their protestations, they don't even come close to covering the cost via the road-use tax and motor-fuel tax.

Your comments are welcomed, as always.


----------



## RSG

leacrane said:


> I love it. Passenger rail has been a losing proposition for over 50 years. Ever hear if a concept called Utilitarianism? Do the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't blame Trump for the fact that a tiny fraction of the population use LD service. Or the losses. Come up with false analogies that govt programs don't have to make money. Of course they don't. Food Stamps don't make money. Tanks and missiles don't either. However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures. For selfish reasons I'd want LD to continue. My life will be negatively impacted. So will yours, I get it. Yet I can think of hundreds of higher ranking priorities.


This argument is part of the problem as to why transportation in the USA is often schizophrenic and usually behind the times in both repairs of existing infrastructure and new construction.
We tend to view transportation in isolated bubbles instead of looking at it as parts of one big picture. It's not a matter of passenger aviation or passenger rail or passenger bus or personal vehicular transport or a combination of some of those; it's *all* of those combined.

But if you were an alien who was visiting the US for the first time, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that airplanes and cars were the only way people got from Point A to Point B outside of an urban core. It's no wonder that legislators and the general public also see it that way. Yet when something disrupts either or both of those methods, all of a sudden everyone realizes how dependent we are on a couple of forms of transport, at least until service is restored and it's business as usual again.

Not to mention that the Interstate Highway System wasn't designed so that Chevy Chase could make a movie franchise epitomizing and romanticising family travel; it was created as a potential military staging system. But you'd have a hard time utilizing it for that if it was necessary, since most who use it (and are dependent on it) have come to regard it as their God-given right to use as they see fit (and often drive like maniacs doing so). Yet there's always priority given when it comes to its repair---until it's time to find a quick source of extra money and the Highway Trust Fund is raided to cover something else. It only truly becomes a higher ranking priority when there's a bridge collapse or a sinkhole in a section of highway caused by erosion which could have been prevented with additional maintenance.

The quickest way to immobilize a nation is to prevent it from going about its normal course of business and disrupt travel. In a fully integrated transportation scheme that would be more difficult to do, but is currently quite easy. Therefore, if we started looking at our transportation system not only as a means to get from place to place, but as an essential part of national security with inherent redundancy, there wouldn't be a constant discussion about rattling the tin cup for Amtrak and gee-why-is-gub'mint-in-the-business-of-transportation-anyway. It would be seen as essential transportation for regular users and part of a backup plan for the rest of the nation. That is the value to those who otherwise don't utilize it and is just as important as a long-range missile program---which may never be actually used. When we get closer to making that point of view a reality, the closer we will be to solving our national transportation insecurity problem.


----------



## seat38a

jis said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll believe "*Not to forget an order placed for Avelia Liberty trains to replace the Acelas, faster, cheaper and easier to operate, 40% more capacity, and enuff cars to allow more high speed trains during rush hour,*" when it does happen but I'm not holding my breath. Considering no rail orders by Amtrak have gone right recently including the current Acela's, what makes you think the Avelia Liberty order will do any better?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you then also believe that the ACS-64 order which has just been successfully completed is not an Amtrak order? Whose order was it then?
Click to expand...

Let me clear myself up, ENGINE's have been fine as far a we know so far. Passenger cars have been dismal.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

A Voice said:


> leacrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) *isn't* a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.
> 
> Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.
Click to expand...

"Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.


----------



## Ryan

You have a funny definition of what "right" and "privilege" mean.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leacrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) *isn't* a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.
> 
> Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.
Click to expand...

Hint hint Thurmond, West Virginia


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leacrane said:
> 
> 
> 
> However our voters and politicians decided they are necessary social and safety expenditures.
> 
> 
> 
> A robust and modern transportation infrastructure (and the associated services) *isn't* a necessary social expenditure? Seriously? Through chronic lack of investment, our roads, rails, and airports are already on a course for gridlock.
> 
> Passenger rail is not just a desirable, but often a required part of transit and mobility. Even in rural areas where other modes might arguably pick up the slack, you still need network connectivity and options in mode of transport to best exploit mobility and development.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Required part of transit and mobility"? Somebody ask Las Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, and Louisville among others. I'll believe rail transportation is a right when "everybody" has it. Everybody does not so it's a privilege. If people lose it, too bad. You want trains? Fill them. If 5 people live in your town, you don't deserve train service.
Click to expand...

First, you left out a key, critical word from the quote: "*often* a required part of transit and mobility" (emphasis added). If New York lost rail transit it would not just be "too bad"; The city and metropolitan area would be unable to function. But just because something is really required doesn't necessarily mean it always happens, and that is particularly true with passenger rail. Atlanta sees two passenger trains a day and has very, very limited light rail systems, but anyone who has driven through the place during rush hour will tell you the area truly requires some form of rail. Nashville has commuter rail but no intercity service.

I also specifically stated that in rural areas (though I'm not aware of any cities with a population of five) other modes _might_ suffice. But there are completely valid reasons, stated above, for providing an _appropriate_ level of passenger rail here, too. A city of 35,000 doesn't need rail transit, unless it happens to be located near a major metropolitan area such as Chicago, then it likely does. Locations such as Las Vegas and Louisville should properly be on the routes of long-distance trains; These are 'missing links' in the system.

Further, *nobody* said rail transportation is a right, nor say anything even remotely like that. It is not about being 'deserving' of anything or granting a privilege; That *completely* misses the point (some grocery have a sale on red herring or something today...). Transportation is a necessary and appropriate function of government, and passenger rail is part of that.


----------



## Rover

Passenger / Vacation rail (vs. commuter & freight rail) is very low on the Govt.'s list of priorities.

In their mind, people take planes or drive to their vacations, or to get from one place in the country to the other, some using buses.

In reality, if you like vacation and scenic rail, as a priority, and not a luxury in your life, then the US is not the place to enjoy that.

If it's a top priority, and you can afford it, then move to Europe, to Switzerland.

I don't think the US Govt. is ever going to get behind passenger rail, like they have air transportation.

If you have modest means, then you'd better be able to buy or rent an RV, to "see the U.S.A."

But, if you're rich, then the Govt. has got really got your back... you can see the USA by flying around in your private plane., and landing at one of thousands of airports with paved runways.

Now, you see, how things _really_ work in the good 'ol USA !!!


----------



## jis

Heheh Red Herrings indeed! Lots flying around today


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

I know that some may not find transportation to be an important factor in choosing a place to live, but the fact that Chicago is the hub of the Amtrak network is an important reason I plan on moving there next year. While Europe certainly has a better rail system, it would not make sense for me to move there because almost all of the places I would travel to would be in the US so I would have to fly anyway. At least within the US, almost every major city can be reached by rail even if it is inconvenient.


----------



## Lonestar648

I was reading an article that listed the budget cuts as proposed by Speaker Ryan. It appears almost identical to Trump's with Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion eliminated along with transit funds for several groups including the Metro in Washington. Question one, at that amount, isn't that more than just long distance trains being cut? Also, without Metro in DC, where will all of the Washington govt staff park? I realize that this a proposal but still is unsettling.


----------



## tommylicious

Republicans need to show they can agree on something. Amtrak is losing money which makes it a very easy target for Trump, Congress to point to as another example of "government waste". LD services should be a done deal, probably shuttered by spring '18.


----------



## A Voice

Lonestar648 said:


> I was reading an article that listed the budget cuts as proposed by Speaker Ryan. It appears almost identical to Trump's with Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion eliminated along with transit funds for several groups including the Metro in Washington. Question one, at that amount, isn't that more than just long distance trains being cut? Also, without Metro in DC, where will all of the Washington govt staff park? I realize that this a proposal but still is unsettling.


Yes, a budget cut of that level would shut Amtrak down completely, including Acela and the Northeast Corridor. Everyone should know that's not happening. _The long-distance trains remain safe as well_, though exactly how all this plays out - and what exact funding levels will be - remains to be seen.


----------



## acelafan

How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.


----------



## A Voice

acelafan said:


> How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.


History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.

That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually _know_ anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.


----------



## neroden

GWB submitted "zero out Amtrak" budgets to Republican Congresses more than once and lost. Reagan's attacks were actually more effective than GWB's.

We have a further advantage now: they're not even trying to kill the NEC, which they WERE trying to do before. The thing is, as I said, any cuts to long-distance trains just move overhead costs (which are nearly all the costs) over to the NEC, so they're not in a position to attack the long-distance trains either. And we have a yet further advantage: the Trump "budget" has already been declared DOA in Congress, due to idiocy like this *and* the fact that it isn't even a complete budget.

So, in fact, we've just discovered the Republicans don't have a working majority in the House. They have about 23 people who will vote "no" on everything, which means that they can't pass anything without Democratic votes. But they're still following the "Hastert rule" of trying to pass everything without Democratic votes, because they're loons.

The result is that I do not expect them to pass a budget at all. Expect another continuing resolution, which is the only thing they'll get Democratic support for. It remains to be seen whether they're even willing to raise the debt limit.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yep, the Circus has arrived in Sodom on the Potomac with lots of Clowns and no Elephants!

Lock up the women and the children and Let the Games Begin!


----------



## Ziv

Neroden, I think the part of your comment I kept in the quote box below is really important. Trump is not a conservative, he is a bombastic populist. The Freedom Caucus spit in his soup, and Trump holds a grudge. It is very possible that he will turn to Manchin, Heitkamp et. al. for the votes he needs. The GOP is broken and Trump may roll the Freedom Caucus and turn to moderate Dems for a couple easy wins. Or he could completely turn away from the GOP orthodoxy and go full populist and still keep the majority of his Trump supporters.

It is possible that this time will be seen as similar to what happened to Clinton when the Contract With America team was elected to the House in 1994. Clinton went from a fairly consistently liberal Presidency to his policy of triangulation, and that is when he started to get things done.



neroden said:


> So, in fact, we've just discovered the Republicans don't have a working majority in the House. They have about 23 people who will vote "no" on everything, which means that they can't pass anything without Democratic votes. But they're still following the "Hastert rule" of trying to pass everything without Democratic votes, because they're loons.


----------



## Maverickstation

Here is an excellent article on the Carter Cuts of 1979, and the back and forth during that year.

http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/a-new-map-emerges


----------



## JoeBas

Anyone who doesn't understand the threat from this administration (limiting this statement to long-distance passenger rail for topicality), just isn't paying attention.

When everything is in the fire, you can only save so much before the rest of it burns.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

JoeBas I agree 100%.

Posted this on the City of NO thread more relevant here though.

I agree as important as Amtrak is it's not in the top ten. Social security, healthcare, education are all more important to name a few and the Republicans want to destroy those programs as well. Facts are facts the current version of the GOP has a very anti middle class agenda. Sad for the wealthiest country in the world. We are light years behind the rest of the world on almost level.


----------



## RSG

Amtrakfflyer said:


> JoeBas I agree 100%.
> 
> Posted this on the City of NO thread more relevant here though.
> 
> I agree as important as Amtrak is it's not in the top ten. Social security, healthcare, education are all more important to name a few and the Republicans want to destroy those programs as well. Facts are facts the current version of the GOP has a very anti middle class agenda. Sad for the wealthiest country in the world. We are light years behind the rest of the world on almost level.


And yet we still fund Social Security (borrowing from as yet unborn children to do so), as well as education on the Federal level and likewise, we will continue to fund Amtrak, including long distance rail. A lot of the 'attacks' (and the rebuttals) are simply virtue signaling to the respective constituencies. There's a lot of money to be made by non-governmental organizations in ginning up the Outrage Machine and keeping it going.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before.
Click to expand...

We've also lost many long distance routes in the past.



A Voice said:


> Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed.


Largely or completely unscathed? Amtrak amenities, service levels, and route miles have suffered repeatedly under the growing size and influence of the anti-rail movement.



A Voice said:


> What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast).


Nobody is saying the NEC is at risk of being dissolved. It may be at risk of being privatized, but that's likely to come later, after a suitably corrupt oligarch has been identified for a sweetheart purchase price.



A Voice said:


> Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.


Amtrak should remain intact or not remain at all? Seems much more likely that Amtrak loses one or more long distance routes while retaining commuter corridors and state sponsored trains. But I guess that outcome doesn't fit into the Pollyanna "nothing to see here" narrative you're trying to spin.


----------



## JoeBas

Devil's Advocate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast).
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying the NEC is at risk of being dissolved. It may be at risk of being privatized, but that's likely to come later, after a suitably corrupt oligarch has been identified for a sweetheart purchase price.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we just first have to get rid of these troublesome Long Distance Profit Suckers. Then there'll be *soooo* much less resistance to giving the remnant NEC and corridors to the 1%-er-du-jour, with the maintenance done at taxpayer expense (socialized expenses, privatized revenue).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Maverickstation said:


> Here is an excellent article on the Carter Cuts of 1979, and the back and forth during that year.
> 
> http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/a-new-map-emerges


The 1979 cuts described in more detail, specifically the PM/TM used to determine which trains should have been canceled: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/



Devil's Advocate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> acelafan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've also lost many long distance routes in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Largely or completely unscathed? Amtrak amenities, service levels, and route miles have suffered repeatedly under the growing size and influence of the anti-rail movement.
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak should remain intact or not remain at all? Seems much more likely that Amtrak loses one or more long distance routes while retaining commuter corridors and state sponsored trains. But I guess that outcome doesn't fit into the Pollyanna "nothing to see here" narrative you're trying to spin.
Click to expand...

And they saved the wrong ones and cut the wrong ones. They should have been determined by merit and not nepotism.

I'm wondering if any LD routes are cut would states get involved to pick up the slack? When the National Limited was cut, Missouri added STL-KCY trains and Pennsylvania added the Pennsylvanian. We can say this state won't fund trains but if their LD trains disappear and they have no service that might be the push to get these states to do so. Minnesota has proposed a state funded CHI-MSP train on top of the EB. Get rid of the EB and see how fast that CHI-MSP train (the only one then) becomes a reality.


----------



## neroden

I repeat again that there is a fundamental economic difference between the situation for Amtrak in the 1970s and 1980s and the situation now. Having looked at the reports then, when *did list direct costs* (no allocations), the trains really *were* costing a large amount to run (not just overhead) in the 70s and 80s. Now, they're mostly profitable before overhead.

This *is* a difference.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the NEC and all the state-supported trains continue to run, since the NEC isn't being attacked (a new development) and the states are just as supportive as they were in 2016. This requires nearly all of Amtrak's overhead to continue, including bases at Beech Grove, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and Portland. Let's run through the long-distance trains once again, and see if any money could be saved by cutting anything (spoiler: not much).

My estimates of profits before overhead are *underestimates*, by the way, because I believe I'm overestimating direct costs and underestimating overhead. Direct costs were specified to include the costs of stations served only by one train.

-- Despite recent declines, the Auto Train is quite profitable -- about $36.8 million. The Sanford Maintenance Facility must stay open to support SunRail. Cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Palmetto jointly generate a profit of about $45 million per year. This is certainly enough to pay for the rent and staffing at the stations they share along the route which are not shared with corridor trains (i.e. south of Cary). It looks like it's enough to pay for Hialeah maintenance base too. So: again, incrementally profitable; canceling any of them would COST money every year.

-- The Lake Shore Limited is profitable by about $3.8 million per year. This is enough to cover the costs of Cleveland and Toledo, the only staffed stations not shared with state services. So cancelling this would, again, COST money every year.

-- The Capitol Limited costs about $4.7 million per year to run. All staffed stations are either unique to it (and therefore included in this number) or are used by state services or the profitable LSL. So that's the sum total you could possibly save by cancelling it. In fact, over half of its passengers connect to other trains... the result is that cancelling it would probably lose more than $4.7 million in revenue on other trains, thus meaning that cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- The Coast Starlight seems to cost about $1.8 million per year to operate. All the maintenance facilities are shared with state services, and all the stations are either shared with state services or unique to this route (and so included in this number). Again, like the Capitol Limited, this almost certainly generates revenue from connecting traffic on state services in excess of $1.8 million, so cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- The Empire Builder seems to cost about $3.5 million per year to operate. Again, all the stations are either unique to this route or shared with state services. I don't know whether it generates enough connecting traffic revenue to cover that, but seriously, $3.5 million per year?!?

I'm not going to go through them all again, but you get my point. The maximum theoretical amount Amtrak could save by cutting long-distance trains would be $59.2 million plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station. (New Orleans is the only station shared by multiple long-distance trains but not by state services, NEC, LSL, or Silvers.) It would actually be less than that. This assumes (a) we only cut the unprofitable trains, (b) my estimates are right (they're not, they underestimate profits and overestimate losses), and © no connecting revenue would be lost (it definitely would be lost).

I can estimate a more realistic "maximum savings from cuts" by retaining, in addition to the NEC and state services, the profitable trains (Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, LSL, Crescent), and the trains which are likely generating connecting revenue in excess of their small direct operating loss (Coast Starlight, Capitol Limited, Empire Builder, Cardinal). This would be about $46.5 million. The thing about this is, there's zero chance of doing this politically. What trains would be cut to do this?

-- California Zephyr. Won't happen, Colorado won't allow it, neither will Nevada or Nebraska

-- Southwest Chief. Won't happen, New Mexico won't allow it, neither will Kansas

-- Texas Eagle. Texas and Missouri actually fought for this train.

-- City of New Orleans. *Mississippi* actually fought for this train.

-- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.

So if I were going to be really realistic, I would point out that the maximum Amtrak can save by cutting trains is the roughly $13.2 million for the Sunset Limited (revenue less direct costs).

This is totally insignificant.

Basically, for any CEO at Amtrak, faced with the current system, the only rational thing to do in the face of funding cuts is to get more money, whether from the states or from borrowing. Because cutting trains will either COST money or will cost too much political support to be possible.

I must repeat that this is *very different* from the situation in the 1970s when individual trains had direct losses (revenue minus direct costs, again, BEFORE overhead allocation) upwards of $20 million, IIRC some as high as $40 million. That's a *very different* situation economically.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> I can estimate a more realistic "maximum savings from cuts" by retaining, in addition to the NEC and state services, the profitable trains (Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, LSL, Crescent), and the trains which are likely generating connecting revenue in excess of their small direct operating loss (Coast Starlight, Capitol Limited, Empire Builder, Cardinal). This would be about $46.5 million. The thing about this is, there's zero chance of doing this politically. What trains would be cut to do this?
> 
> -- California Zephyr. Won't happen, Colorado won't allow it, neither will Nevada or Nebraska
> 
> -- Southwest Chief. Won't happen, New Mexico won't allow it, neither will Kansas
> 
> -- Texas Eagle. Texas and Missouri actually fought for this train.
> 
> -- City of New Orleans. *Mississippi* actually fought for this train.
> 
> -- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.


These states that "won't allow" a train to be canceled? Tell them to put their money where their mouths are and fund their trains with state money instead of federal money.


----------



## cirdan

A Voice said:


> History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.
> 
> That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually _know_ anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.


It can be dangerous to lean on history and presume all is safe.

History often does repeat itself, but it doesn't always.

And services once gone, are very difficult and take years to get back. Just look at CONO East.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

cirdan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.
> 
> That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually _know_ anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be dangerous to lean on history and presume all is safe.
> 
> History often does repeat itself, but it doesn't always.
> 
> And services once gone, are very difficult and take years to get back. Just look at CONO East.
Click to expand...

You can say that about many more trains than CONO East. Has any canceled Amtrak train been brought back after say a 5 year gap? I can't think of one.


----------



## ainamkartma

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> History.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be dangerous to lean on history and presume all is safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say that about many more trains than CONO East. Has any canceled Amtrak train been brought back after say a 5 year gap? I can't think of one.
Click to expand...

It wasn't five years, but I learned just the other day that there was no LSL or equivalent for three years in the seventies.

Ainamkartma


----------



## CHamilton

Amtrak’s Gardner calms fears over Trump budget cuts

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/amtraks-gardner-calms-fears-over-trump-budget-cuts.html


----------



## KmH

In the late 1960s it began to look like passenger rail's financial problems were going to bring down the railroad industry as a whole.

No one in the federal government wanted to be held responsible for the extinction of the passenger train.

So Amtrak was formed, though with the expectation that Amtrak would exist for only a short time.

_Fortune_ magazine exposed manufactured mismanagement in 197.

The chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad noted that the Fortune magazine story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.

It may be that Amtrak's LD trains are here to stay.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

CHamilton said:


> Amtrak’s Gardner calms fears over Trump budget cuts
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/amtraks-gardner-calms-fears-over-trump-budget-cuts.html


A good report from the EVP.

Note this: Gardner "suggested that, once a route had ceased, any attempt to ‘go back in’ in the future would cost ‘at least $1bn’."

OK, I'm up for it. Remember when President Whatshisname, you know the black one, included $4 Billion a year for passenger trains in the budget proposal for six years in a row. So with a couple of year's worth of that budget item: _Broadway Ltd._ (NYC-Philly-PGH-CHI), the fabled "day train" to Atlanta (NYC-DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Greenville SC-ATL), the _National Ltd._ (Kansas City-St Louis-Indy-[big problems here]-PGH?-DC), a Florida train CHI-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-[some problems here]-ATL-Florida), and the _Sacajawea_ (aka North Coast Hiawatha).

Taking a hard look at the runt of the litter, the _Sunset Ltd_ has poor results now, but a great future: San Antonio (and nearby Austin), Houston, and Phoenix are among the fastest growing cities in the US, while Tucson, El Paso, Lafayette, New Orleans, and L.A. are all growing markets. Offering up the _Sunset_ now as a sacrifice to the angry gods is surely a $1 Billion bad idea.


----------



## Lonestar648

If the SL was a daily train, the ridership would most definitely increase. Right now it is hard to schedule a round trip using the SL with only three runs per week. So with growing markets on its route, and going to a daily train, would most likely change the status of this train.


----------



## ScouseAndy

Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??


----------



## CCC1007

ScouseAndy said:


> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??


The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

CCC1007 said:


> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
> 
> 
> 
> The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

neroden said:


> -- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.


In my mind I have bigger fish to fry. But the SL does seem to be one of the biggest money losers, especially with non daily service. When you are in the same neighborhood as that other train that's not good.

In my mind the SL's main purposes are to connect California and Texas and to serve Houston. In reality Arizona and New Mexico already have the SWC. If the SL served Phoenix I'd feel better about the portion west of SAS (the Flagstaff Thruway connection would still be intact). Ideally if there is a way to keep the SAS-HOS-NOL portion I'd be willing to part with the portion west of San Antonio (largest metros lost would be El Paso and Tucson, Palm Springs would also lose service). Unfortunately SAS-NOL isn't 750 miles so it can't qualify as an LD train by itself. One idea is to extend the Crescent to SAS but that would take more Viewliner sets that are already in short supply. Other possibilities would be SAS-Florida via NOL, CONO to SAS and/or TE to NOL. Maybe we can have a triangle route between CHI-NOL-SAS, then back to CHI (one going to NOL first and the other going to SAS first). The CL and CONO's would be the same and Houston would have a one seat ride to Chicago for the first time since the Dallas-Houston portion of the TE was canceled. If you could get the HF to KCY it could be a through car branch from Fort Worth to KCY off the SWC which would keep a one seat ride between Dallas and Los Angeles.

Ideally I'd like to get rid of the 750 rule and keep service to urban areas while cutting rural service. You shouldn't have to run a train 1000-2000 miles to serve one or two major markets. Ask Congress if they'd rather pay for a 500 mile route or a 1000-2000 mile route. If Congress would pay for a NOL-SAS stand alone route and others, you could cut many train miles off the Amtrak system and keep service to all the major markets.


----------



## ScouseAndy

Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
> 
> 
> 
> The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
Click to expand...

Ultimately how much of that 227 deficit went into the back pockets of the class 1s?


----------



## A Voice

CHamilton said:


> Amtrak’s Gardner calms fears over Trump budget cuts
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/amtraks-gardner-calms-fears-over-trump-budget-cuts.html


Most important quote of the article (and it's not what some posters here seem to want to believe):

‘The most likely outcome is that the status quo will prevail’, Gardner believes.



Devil's Advocate said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
> 
> 
> 
> The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
Click to expand...

Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access.

If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Ideally I'd like to get rid of the 750 rule and keep service to urban areas while cutting rural service. You shouldn't have to run a train 1000-2000 miles to serve one or two major markets. Ask Congress if they'd rather pay for a 500 mile route or a 1000-2000 mile route. If Congress would pay for a NOL-SAS stand alone route and others, you could cut many train miles off the Amtrak system and keep service to all the major markets.


You would largely just be maintaining service in name only. For instance, a New Orleans to San Antonio (presumably day) train and then an El Paso to Los Angeles train ignores passenger markets travelling through the end points. There is generally no single point where you can split a route without abandoning a significant percentage of the passengers (and travel markets). For a train route which already loses money, I'd question the wisdom of a business strategy designed to produce _less_ revenue while preserving most of the (unavoidable) costs.

As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.


----------



## JoeBas

A Voice said:


> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.


No, don't cut THIS arm off, we need THIS arm. Cut THAT arm off!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

A Voice said:


> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.


Amtrak wants to cut funding. I (and others) want to figure out how much of the Amtrak system can be preserved with less money. Either the cuts won't happen or they will and we have to figure out what we can keep. Let the cannibalism begin!

Fight the cuts but be realistic. You might see another 1979 or 1997.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak wants to cut funding.
Click to expand...

Where did you possibly hear or read that *Amtrak* - not the administration, but *Amtrak* - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

A Voice said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak wants to cut funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you possibly hear or read that *Amtrak* - not the administration, but *Amtrak* - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
> 
> 
> 
> The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access. If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

If the government built an apartment complex with taxpayer funds and then gave the complex to me to operate, along with a bunch of other free land I could sell to others, it might be the same thing. In which case I'd have no problem allowing them to reserve one of the units for a government employee at no cost to them.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

JoeBas said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to cut back Amtrak service?
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't cut THIS arm off, we need THIS arm. Cut THAT arm off!
Click to expand...

No, don't cut MY arm off, I need MY arm. Cut HIS arm off, instead, I don't care about HIS arm!

_Fixed that for you._


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Excuse me, but why are you all acting like any of these factions operate on logical decision making?

Trump is not unique. All politicians are self aggrandizing, and all of them make excessive hay out of the fact that the masses confuse motion with accomplishment.

I don't know how much danger Amtrak is in. It's risk as a part of our government is that it is small but visible and makes a great way to demonstrate accomplishment (I.e. Motion) without disturbing the actual status quo of the whole system.

If that's the play that the GOP are looking for, Amtrak is in trouble. The flip side was true with Obama. $4 billion is peanuts to signal massive change and accomplishment without actually disturbing the system.


----------



## Gulfwind2

It is sad to say but politically speaking it appears this administration has no use for transportation policy. Trump's victory in this regard was making some popular comments about "crumbling infrastructure", as well as getting to appoint a minority (Mrs. Chao) to his cabinet in an effort to silence critics and score points with the Heritage Foundation. Remember that Amtrak is strictly a northeastern railroad. In all places where Amtrak operates outside the NEC, it must conduct operations at the discretion of apathetic freight carriers who maintain their infrastructure to the least passable standards. Amtrak is an easy political target due to the fact that it is hardly even a railroad in the sense of being an autonomous party which can set its own schedules, track speeds, and pair frequencies with market demand.

Amtrak's problems transcend Congressional bickering. America has a 100% publicly owned & maintained surface transportation component- which is the network of highways that were mostly built during economic boom years between the Truman & Johnson administrations. America however does not have a comparable political subdivision to effectively carry forth the demand for intercity rail transportation nationwide. Neither the President nor Congress will change that unless the Federal Government restructures railroad ownership nationwide by way of full-blown nationalization, or unless the Federal Government wholesale ceases its relationship with automobile-oriented surface transportation. I know none of these things are likely to happen in the foreseeable future. But until one of those options is chosen and fully carried out, all Federal policy decisions regarding Amtrak will result in negligible or no impact upon the overall market share between modes in domestic transportation.


----------



## railbuck

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak wants to cut funding.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you possibly hear or read that *Amtrak* - not the administration, but *Amtrak* - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.
Click to expand...

Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak wants to cut funding. I (and others) want to figure out how much of the Amtrak system can be preserved with less money. Either the cuts won't happen or they will and we have to figure out what we can keep. Let the cannibalism begin
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railbuck said:


> Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.


But we do have the Heritage budget out in public and isn't the AU's job to overreact to all Amtrak news?



jis said:


> Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.


And you wonder why I want privately funded rail so we don't have to deal with this crap.

If I were Wick and I spoke before Congress, I'd say Houston and its over 6 million people would lose intercity train service, Atlanta and its over 5 million people would lose intercity train service, etc. Meanwhile, the entire states of Montana and North Dakota have less than two million people combined, less than Houston, Atlanta, Denver, and Cincinnati who also would lose Amtrak as well. And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak. I'd imagine most if not all of the Houston area is within 50 miles of the Amtrak station there. Puts numbers in front of them and see how loud they speak. Just because Houston, Atlanta, and Denver have airports and highways doesn't mean they don't need trains (what if you are afraid to fly and/or don't have a car?). If you really care more about Rugby, ND than Miami, then don't just talk about the rural areas, put numbers in front of them. If there are 10 million people who would lose their only transportation option, put that 10 million in front of them and it speaks louder. You want to me Rugby, ND? I'll guess 98 of the 100 senators have never heard of the town (and maybe even the 2 haven't either). Talk about Orlando. Better yet, show a picture of a crying Mickey Mouse for special effects.

Of course Senate speak would say North Dakota and Montana are just as important as Texas and Florida and if one of those people get in charge of Congress (like Byrd) "more important". Hopefully the House will have more say as to the amount of the Amtrak subsidy.


----------



## JoeBas

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.


Actually, the PRESIDENT is proposing cutting funding.

So your correction can stand corrected.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Philly: A quick Civics Lesson about today's Congress: The current make up of the House is a dysfunctional partisan mess led by a Heritage puppet (Paul Ryan)and and it contains a herd of know nothing's called the Freedom Cacus.

The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)

With the White House in total chaos and possible impeachment looming, the Senate is the best hope for a sane budget ( that includes funding for rail)and also the strongest check against the craziness that is coming out of the gang that can't shoot straight @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the zealots in the peoples House.. YMMV

As always, most AU members are totally in support of bringing back the Broadway Ltd. and overwhelmingly against killing your nemesis, the Byrd Special,aka The Cardinal.


----------



## JoeBas

Bob Dylan said:


> The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)


Correction: The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisan since their party hasn't figured out yet how to gerrymander entire states, and they have to remain somewhat centrists if they want to keep their seats.

YW.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak wants to cut funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you possibly hear or read that *Amtrak* - not the administration, but *Amtrak* - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I would expect it will be Congress which _restores_ the funds the administration's budget proposal omitted



Devil's Advocate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
> 
> 
> 
> The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access. If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the government built an apartment complex with taxpayer funds and then gave the complex to me to operate, along with a bunch of other free land I could sell to others, it might be the same thing. In which case I'd have no problem allowing them to reserve one of the units for a government employee at no cost to them.
Click to expand...

Modern freight railroad infrastructure - the Class 1's, primarily - is neither built nor maintained with taxpayer funds.

Incremental improvements and capacity expansion has taken place in a handful of locations, which are federally or state funded, but such construction is for the benefit of the passenger service, not freight haulage.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do have the Heritage budget out in public and isn't the AU's job to overreact to all Amtrak news?
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you wonder why I want privately funded rail so we don't have to deal with this crap.
> 
> If I were Wick and I spoke before Congress, I'd say Houston and its over 6 million people would lose intercity train service, Atlanta and its over 5 million people would lose intercity train service, etc. Meanwhile, the entire states of Montana and North Dakota have less than two million people combined, less than Houston, Atlanta, Denver, and Cincinnati who also would lose Amtrak as well. And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak. I'd imagine most if not all of the Houston area is within 50 miles of the Amtrak station there. Puts numbers in front of them and see how loud they speak. Just because Houston, Atlanta, and Denver have airports and highways doesn't mean they don't need trains (what if you are afraid to fly and/or don't have a car?). If you really care more about Rugby, ND than Miami, then don't just talk about the rural areas, put numbers in front of them. If there are 10 million people who would lose their only transportation option, put that 10 million in front of them and it speaks louder. You want to me Rugby, ND? I'll guess 98 of the 100 senators have never heard of the town (and maybe even the 2 haven't either). Talk about Orlando. Better yet, show a picture of a crying Mickey Mouse for special effects.
> 
> Of course Senate speak would say North Dakota and Montana are just as important as Texas and Florida and if one of those people get in charge of Congress (like Byrd) "more important". Hopefully the House will have more say as to the amount of the Amtrak subsidy.
Click to expand...

You have a legitimate point; There is no need or call to attack rural regions of the country to make it. Both urban and rural areas have a need for modern rail passenger service; Obviously in more rural communities there is less demand, and correspondingly there is also less train service. Don't begrudge someone their one train a day just so you can have a sixth option for a train to Chicago. Some major metropolitan areas - and the smaller communities which link them - have no train at all. Want to trade places?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

JoeBas said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisan since their party hasn't figured out yet how to gerrymander entire states, and they have to remain somewhat centrists if they want to keep their seats.
> 
> YW.
Click to expand...

I admire your cynicism, if you properly hone it, you will will go far (or end up a depressed alcoholic burn out, like me- depending on your luck).
But not everybody in Senate is bad. Dunno Graham or the other Jim mentioned, but McCain is a patriot, he is sane, and he has what he feels to be the country's best interests at heart (and sucker punched himself more than once in furtherance of that- including throwing his last chance at the presidency). I disagree with him on more issues than I can name, especially rail, but don't discount the fact he is a good man.


----------



## Lonestar648

I am not a fan of McCain's anti-Amtrak stance and never have been. The people of Arizona are thrilled with this position, so any stops in Arizona he would be happy to eliminate. A long time ago, he stated that if you didn't want to drive or fly, then you had no business traveling.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Green Maned Lion said:


> McCain is a patriot, he is sane, and he has what he feels to be the country's best interests at heart...


 McCain of 2000 was a genuine maverick willing to buck his party and even (gasp!) negotiate in good faith with the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately McCain of 2008 was a changed man who willingly cowed to power and helped further divid and poison our national discourse by selecting a spineless reality show reject as his running mate. McCain of today is almost completely unrecognizable to me. I honestly cannot even begin to imagine what he gains from playing the role of a (mostly) forgotten cog in a system so corrupt and hypocritical that it no longer bears any resemblance to the views and values he claimed to champion once upon a time.


----------



## Rover

ScouseAndy said:


> Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??


Nationalize the rails. With the right Supreme Court, you can get anything accomplished, Union or no.


----------



## jis

Actually Amtrak's track access charges are very modest and barely cover the actual cost of maintaining the tracks to passenger rail standard, something that freight railroads need to do to enable Amtrak to run, and usually don't do as good a job as they could.

So it is a huge myth to say that Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. The arrangements could be a little more market driven, in which case Amtrak would probably pay substantially more.


----------



## Carolina Special

What other industries do you wish to nationalize while we're at it?

The airlines, the truckers and the car companies? Put all transportation on an equal footing with the railroads.

Why not the whole Silicon Valley, Wall Street, big oil and the entertainment industry? That will take care of their outlandish pay packages and private jets.

Where should it end? Before or after we shoot ourselves in the foot or worse?


----------



## Ryan

Carolina Special said:


> The airlines, the truckers and the car companies?


All move about the country on a nationalized infrastructure built, owned, and maintained by the government.



Carolina Special said:


> Put all transportation the railroads on an equal footing with the railroads all transportation.


That's the idea, yes.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ryan wins the thread!


----------



## dlagrua

The entire US political and business sectors are corrupt. They can be compared to Mussolini's Fascist Italy of the 1940's where business and government joined to form a single ruling force.

The reason why Amtrak LD routes will remain is that the states along the routes West are meaningful for the majority party. They represent votes and jobs. The representatives in those states are not about to cut their nose to spite their face. Amtrak has been down this road before. I fully expect Amtrak to continue on unchanged.


----------



## Carolina Special

OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.

UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.

Now maybe you could force some of these companies to sell for virtually nothing, but it would probably require another 2008 economic crisis. Like Obama was able to pull off with the original GM shareholders, as they got zilch when Detroit was "saved". More likely you wind up with a tough slog, like FDR trying to nationalize the utilities industry in the 1930s before more important things like WWII came along.

If you want to go forward with this, please use your tax dollars to pay for it and not mine.


----------



## Lonestar648

Nationalizing the Transportation Systems is not the solution. What doers the government know about running these businesses. More committees, departments, and over site and red tape. With the current Congress and White House we will go away from more Government. Look, they want to privatize the FAA ATC system.


----------



## RSG

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak.


I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people _are willing to travel *to*_ [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.

Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights. Both examples impact the associated airport and Amtrak stations. So the impact of losing the _Empire Builder_ would affect more than 11% of Montana residents or 32% of North Dakotans. I would assume such analysis doesn't include the residents of far-Eastern Montana who are closer to services in North Dakota and thus use the Williston station and therefore aren't included in any Montana numbers. In other words, not everyone has to be served in a particular area for a significant impact to be made upon that area.


----------



## Ziv

RSG nailed it. People drive a long way to catch the Empire Builder because everything in the west, and in Montana especially, is spread out over a huge spread of land. When I was growing up on the Hi-Line in Montana, we would drive 300 miles for a basketball game and the girls in my high school drove 280 miles to the big city of Billings to shop for clothes. The Empire Builder is a big thing in Montana (and North Dakota I would imagine) and not just for the very northernmost towns.



RSG said:


> I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people _are willing to travel *to*_ [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.
> 
> Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights.


----------



## CCC1007

Ziv said:


> RSG nailed it. People drive a long way to catch the Empire Builder because everything in the west, and in Montana especially, is spread out over a huge spread of land. When I was growing up on the Hi-Line in Montana, we would drive 300 miles for a basketball game and the girls in my high school drove 280 miles to the big city of Billings to shop for clothes. The Empire Builder is a big thing in Montana (and North Dakota I would imagine) and not just for the very northernmost towns.
> 
> 
> 
> RSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people _are willing to travel *to*_ [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.
> Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights.
Click to expand...

Completely agree that the empire builder is a big thing in Montana, and it even has a draw from Canadian customers, some even coming from as far as Edmonton to board at sby.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Fellas, Just step away from Limbaugh radio and Faux News.Your fever will go down just as soon as you do.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Nobody is leading a movement to nationalize anything, least of all the railroads. But like some folks imagine spooky boogers in their closets or under their beds, some imagine Socialists in high places aiming to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy.

Here on AU, when someone advocates taking over the big freight railroads, usually the aim is compare that far out idea with the more far out way we actually do things today. On the one hand, here's a wild idea; on the other hand, here's the really stupid was we do things now.

Subsidizing passenger rail isn't much like European-style Socialism anyway. It's more like American-style transportation policy: The government builds dams and locks and dredges rivers and bays to subsidize private barge traffic. The government provides funds for private companies to fly small passenger planes into small cities where the local Chamber of Commerce has convinced their Congresscritter that air service is "essential" for business visitors. The government requires airport landing fees to be per airplane, rather than per passenger; does a plane with 200 passengers cost 100 times as much for an airport to handle as a one-pilot cub -- traffic control, refueling facilities, hanger space, whatever? The government transfers Billions from general revenue (income tax) into the Highway Trust Fund because low gas taxes don't generate enuff to keep highways and bridges in a state of good repair.

Of course, some types of transportation are more equal than others in the amount of federal aid they get. Perhaps we should remedy this disparity, and nationalize the highways and waterways, and take all the publicly owned and operated airports into one federal agency, the National Airports Administration.

We could do that, perhaps as a last resort. But perhaps we can find another way to more fairly distribute federal support to all types of interstate transportation. Ya think?


----------



## Rover

So, rather taking over the freight lines, just spend the billions of infrastructure on new dedicated passenger rail lines.

Then comes the politics of where to build and route those new dedicated passenger rail lines.

Them instead of the Govt. running a passenger train, the free market could decide who wants to service those rail routes.


----------



## Lonestar648

Could there be a joint operation where in busy lanes, there is a passenger track(s) maybe parallel to the freight tracks, built for higher speeds and passenger comfort. But in the less traveled area both Freight and Passenger travel on same tracks that have been upgraded for Passenger speed with sidings and/or double track. Eliminate current grade crossings so speeds can be higher, travel safer. Laying entirely new ROW for Passenger would be extremely expensive to purchase, gain local, county, state, and federal approvals, and work through all the litigation per mile. Just a thought of a way to get higher speed tracks for Passenger rail. Also, eliminate the congressional limit on the number of concrete ties used by the RR because of the Lumber industry lobby s.


----------



## seat38a

Lonestar648 said:


> Could there be a joint operation where in busy lanes, there is a passenger track(s) maybe parallel to the freight tracks, built for higher speeds and passenger comfort. But in the less traveled area both Freight and Passenger travel on same tracks that have been upgraded for Passenger speed with sidings and/or double track. Eliminate current grade crossings so speeds can be higher, travel safer. Laying entirely new ROW for Passenger would be extremely expensive to purchase, gain local, county, state, and federal approvals, and work through all the litigation per mile. Just a thought of a way to get higher speed tracks for Passenger rail. Also, eliminate the congressional limit on the number of concrete ties used by the RR because of the Lumber industry lobby s.


Well that is what they are doing for large portions of the CAHSR. Big portions of it will be along existing ROW next to current freight rail. Also, not dedicated ROW but the model that the State of California is using on the Capitol Corridor is probably a more realistic model. Portions of the corridor also have the ability for faster passenger rail to pass slower freight trains, vs one or the other idling at a siding.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

There's no other proposals. The Trump budget isnt rational it's just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.

Specially talking about Amtrak. I hate to bring it up since I'm very involved with my airline union and pro labor. Compared to an equivalent job at the airlines Amtrak OBS are very well (and possibly) over compensated. A flight attendant at American Eagle, United Express and such makes the equivalent of minimum wage(16,000-18,00 a year).Most regional airline pilots make under 50,000 and some ALOT less. Long days, 2 star hotels, no pension a 401k that may match 5 percent and high ded medical. Pilot pay gets better as they go to major airlines. Flight attendant pay does as well but tops out around 40 grand, again with so so benefits, no pension.

My point being Iowa Pacific put out a great onboard product with dedicated employees on the Hoosier state. I'm sure they were making next to nothing compared to Amtrak employees with probably a 401k at best.

If the majority of Amtrak does indeed get slated to shut down with the final budget from Congress I think Moorman should try a last ditch plea. Funding for one more year while he tries to negotiate with unions for major concesions. What's better the choice to continue to work if you want with your pension frozen and a 40 percent wage/ benefit cut or be unemployed and loose the national network and the chance to fight another day? Airline employees took the same hit after 9/11. Even with a cut that drastic Amtrak OBS would still be better overall then airline workers.

I am no way saying I think Amtrak employees deserve a pay cut. The facts are equivalent jobs pay less and we have a very anti labor party controlling the purse strings now. If the 94 percent cost recovery is true the concessions would chip away at it. It's just a sucky situation.


----------



## A Voice

Amtrakfflyer said:


> There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.


Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas. Defense is important, for one, and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans which potentially represents a boon for rail transportation. However, neither need come at the expense of programs which _combined_ (Amtrak, PBS, etc.) wouldn't buy one Navy carrier.

There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.


----------



## MikefromCrete

A Voice said:


> Amtrakfflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas. Defense is important, for one, and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans which potentially represents a boon for rail transportation. However, neither need come at the expense of programs which _combined_ (Amtrak, PBS, etc.) wouldn't buy one Navy carrier.
> 
> There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.
Click to expand...

We already spend more money on defense than any other country in the world. I highly doubt if there will be any be infrastructure program because the Republicans in the House and Senate hate any kind of big spending. Just like the ACA replacement, Trump's bluster on big shiny things will go down to defeat.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yep, we spend more on so called Defense, aka Police the World, "Intellegence" and the Phoney War on Drugs than the rest of the World combined!

Is it value for the money spent? Decidefor yourself, but from here it looks like the Republicans Classic "Waste,Fraud and Abuse!"

And a quickie Civics quiz: How long has,it been since Congress passed a Real Budget?

Not "Smoke and Mirrors" or Continuing Resolutions!!!


----------



## neroden

A Voice said:


> Amtrakfflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.
Click to expand...

As a syllogism, this is true, but in fact the proposed (and DOA) budget is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.



> Defense is important, for one,


Yeah, this isn't for defense. I've been following the Military Reform Movement for 30 years. This stuff is slush funds for military contractors; nothing to do with defense. For a strong defense, the first thing we'd need to do is to *massively slash* the budget so that some of the counterproductive pork-barrel military spending which doesn't actually have any military benefit would start to go away. Tanks shipped directly to the tank "graveyards". Ships the Navy doesn't want. Manned fighters and aircraft carriers (now considered obsolete militarily by all serious tacticians; unmanned drones and missiles can run circles around them). Nuclear subs (now obsoleted by zero-heat-signature ultrasilent battery / fuel cell subs). I could go on and on but it's wildly off topic.



> and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans


Yeah, which aren't in this "budget". At all. Several people have commented on it. This tells me that this "budget" isn't actually Trump's idea and that he didn't read it, given that he's still advocating for infrastructure spending which somehow *wasn't proposed* in this "budget".



> There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.


Yeah, even the House Republicans have already rejected the DOA "budget". The process should come up with something more like a real budget. Hopefully.


----------



## neroden

Carolina Special said:


> OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.
> 
> UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.


Eh. Clement Atlee paid a lot to nationalize the British railroads. Worked out well.
More practically speaking, the thing which ought to be nationalized is specifically the TRACKS. It's fine to have private operators and private train ownership; the problem is private TRACK ownership, which is the equivalent of privately owned roads (which, by the way, we basically don't have; they were all nationalized).

The tracks are a small fraction of the overall market value of the railroads and several railroads have been frankly eager to sell them. CN just keeps selling its Canadian tracks (to GO, to AMT, to VIA), and CP seems equally willing. NS under Moorman openly suggested selling all their tracks to the government.


----------



## neroden

Gulfwind2 said:


> It is sad to say but politically speaking it appears this administration has no use for transportation policy. Trump's victory in this regard was making some popular comments about "crumbling infrastructure", as well as getting to appoint a minority (Mrs. Chao) to his cabinet in an effort to silence critics and score points with the Heritage Foundation. Remember that Amtrak is strictly a northeastern railroad. In all places where Amtrak operates outside the NEC, it must conduct operations at the discretion of apathetic freight carriers who maintain their infrastructure to the least passable standards.


Nationalized tracks (state-owned, mostly; some leased by states under very-long-term leases; some owned by Amtrak or commuter rail authorities) which Amtrak operates on:

NORTHEAST:

-- Boston - Maine border

-- Worcester - Boston

-- NEC, Boston - Washington

-- New Haven - Hartford - Springfield - roughly Vermont border

-- New York - Hoffmans (west of Schenectady)

-- Albany - junction with CSX towards Boston ("Post Road Branch")

-- Montreal final station approach tracks

-- east of Niagara Falls NY station - the vicinity of Niagara Falls ON station

-- Aldershot ON - Toronto

-- Philadelphia - Harrisburg

MIDWEST:

-- east of Dearborn MI to west of Michigan City IN

-- Grand Rapids station tracks

-- Chicago River (south branch) through Chicago Union Station, north to Glenview IL

SOUTHEAST:

-- New Orleans Union Station approaches

-- Charlotte NC (north of station) - Greensboro NC - Raleigh NC

-- Miami FL - Mangonia Park, FL

-- north of Poinciana, FL - DeLand, FL

TRANSCON:

-- St. Paul station tracks

-- Denver Union Station approaches

-- Isleta (south of Albuquerque) - north of Lamy

-- Dallas - Fort Worth

WEST COAST:

-- (soon) Nisqually - east of Tacoma, WA

-- LA Union Station approaches

-- Los Angeles - Moorpark (IIRC, might be further)

-- Fullerton (just south of Los Angeles) - San Diego

Probably more than you thought, eh? All proposals for a new Long Bridge would separate passenger tracks from freight from DC to Alexandria, meaning more nationalized track. South of the Lake is an attempt to have passenger-only nationalized track from Michigan City to Chicago. Vermont is planning to extend service to Burlington on nationalized track...


----------



## jis

There is a significant chance of some further selling by CSX in Florida.

OTOH there is significant private track development for passenger rail going on in Florida too with recent statements about further extensions to Tampa and Jacksonville. Oddly, it appears to be FDOT's 2010 plan that is proposed to be built out by AAF!

Then again Florida has had a history of private development of cities, passenger railways and highways in the past with some public funding too, including new counties being created as essentially private fiefdom to get a highway built.


----------



## Rover

Bob Dylan said:


> Yep, we spend more on so called Defense, aka Police the World, "Intellegence" and the Phoney War on Drugs than the rest of the World combined!
> 
> Is it value for the money spent? Decidefor yourself, but from here it looks like the Republicans Classic "Waste,Fraud and Abuse!"
> 
> And a quickie Civics quiz: How long has,it been since Congress passed a Real Budget?
> 
> Not "Smoke and Mirrors" or Continuing Resolutions!!!


Fake Enemies

Fake Wars

It's what makes/made the World Go Round, isn't it??


----------



## Rover

neroden said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.
> 
> UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh. Clement Atlee paid a lot to nationalize the British railroads. Worked out well.
> More practically speaking, the thing which ought to be nationalized is specifically the TRACKS. It's fine to have private operators and private train ownership; *the problem is private TRACK ownership, which is the equivalent of privately owned roads (which, by the way, we basically don't have; they were all nationalized).*
> 
> The tracks are a small fraction of the overall market value of the railroads and several railroads have been frankly eager to sell them. CN just keeps selling its Canadian tracks (to GO, to AMT, to VIA), and CP seems equally willing. NS under Moorman openly suggested selling all their tracks to the government.
Click to expand...

Well...THIS


----------



## blueman271

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrakfflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no other proposals. The Trump budget is just cut, cut, cut. If it's for the middle class or lower just cut it. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail in the Senate for the good of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the proposed (and DOA) budget isn't kind to passenger rail doesn't mean it is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a syllogism, this is true, but in fact the proposed (and DOA) budget is wholly devoid of sound policy and good ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Defense is important, for one,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, this isn't for defense. I've been following the Military Reform Movement for 30 years. This stuff is slush funds for military contractors; nothing to do with defense. For a strong defense, the first thing we'd need to do is to *massively slash* the budget so that some of the counterproductive pork-barrel military spending which doesn't actually have any military benefit would start to go away. Tanks shipped directly to the tank "graveyards". Ships the Navy doesn't want. Manned fighters and aircraft carriers (now considered obsolete militarily by all serious tacticians; unmanned drones and missiles can run circles around them). Nuclear subs (now obsoleted by zero-heat-signature ultrasilent battery / fuel cell subs). I could go on and on but it's wildly off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> and then there remains the yet-to-be-unveiled infrastructure plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, which aren't in this "budget". At all. Several people have commented on it. This tells me that this "budget" isn't actually Trump's idea and that he didn't read it, given that he's still advocating for infrastructure spending which somehow *wasn't proposed* in this "budget".
> 
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as giving the budgetary and political process a chance, and see how things play out, before condemning it as irredeemable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, even the House Republicans have already rejected the DOA "budget". The process should come up with something more like a real budget. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

#alternatefacts. It appears that what you call "facts" are just as dubious as what our President calls the "truth". By all means please explain what an ultra silent battery is, especially in regards to application in submarines. You may have 30 years of "experience" in an armchair behind a computer, but my guess is you don't have any actual real world knowledge. Furthermore, I fully believe that increased defense spending is unnecessary however the way to illustrate that isn't by throwing out b*llsh$t to make people think you know what you are talking about.


----------



## neroden

It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

And finally...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet

These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.

It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.

Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.

The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.

Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.

Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.


----------



## sldispatcher

I would say that there seems to be little political will on either side of the aisle to do the right thing for passenger rail in this country. We really missed the boat in the late 60's / early 70's in getting a high speed rail network investment in place.

Rail can work in this country but it takes vision and leadership on all sides that we simply don't have in place. It is amazing to me that railroads ran multiple passenger frequencies for years on tracks all over this country but in today's climate you think one train in each direction brings an entire freight network to its knees. Union rules in place hamstring any attempt to keep costs in check from a business model perspective. Blind political leaders keep forcing cuts into the LD network services at the point of the highest yielding passengers forcing them to make real decisions about rail vs. alternate forms of transportation. Frequency is almost nill in most LD markets and inadequate in almost all places outside a few corridors, but without equipment and reliability of schedule, the folks won't or can't go for it. Environmental Impact studies and NIMBY lawsuits drive costs and timeframe estimates through the roof.

No one party to this Amtrak dance is to blame alone. The Republicans/Conservatives catch a lot of heat on this board and for good reason at times. But the Democrats, when they were in a position to do anything and everything with rail in this country, hardly budged the needle of perceptible results.

We can do better. We should do better.


----------



## RSG

sldispatcher said:


> Frequency is almost nill in most LD markets and inadequate in almost all places outside a few corridors, but without equipment and reliability of schedule, the folks won't or can't go for it.


To be fair, this is also applicable to the airline world, as well. There are a number of places where there is only one flight in and one flight out per day (or--maybe--two per day). If there are multiple flights, often one is cancelled. People think trains often don't have enough capacity for possible demand at times, but there are some airports where you had better hope you are one of the lucky nine people able to get on a particular flight or you are not going out that day. (Often intercity bus service isn't available, either.)
Ditto the complaints about routing through Chicago or Washington to go somewhere else. Airline travel operates the same way, outside of hub airports. Oftentimes going in the opposite direction is essential to travelling where one really wants to go. It wasn't always this way.

Transportation in general is messed up in the US. You are definitely right, we can do better.


----------



## blueman271

neroden said:


> It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383
> 
> http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/
> 
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html
> 
> And finally...
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet
> 
> These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.
> 
> It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.
> 
> Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.
> 
> The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.
> 
> Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.
> 
> Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.


Not only will I not apologize I say again that you do not know what you are talking about. You have an idea in your head so you found 'sources' that support that idea. However misinformed and wrongheaded it may be. Read the first few paragraphs on page two of the first link. They start to spell out the reason why America maintains and continues to build nuclear submarines. 
Furthermore, you have no idea what the vast majority of submarine missions are. You may be able to sit in front of your computer and make assumptions but they are not 'educated' or 'smart'. Your research will never turn up the true mission of the Navy's submarines because the Navy does not and never has disclosed the majority of those missions.

You say that diesel electric submarines reduce their heat signature to that of a fish which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ill informed at best. Submarines are tracked by their sound or magnetic profile not by their 'heat' signature. And as far as quieting goes there are various ways to make a nuclear submarine as quiet as an AIP diesel boat. But again your 'research' won't tell you this because the Navy does not disclose their methods.

Finally, the Gotland is an amazing boat with an amazing crew. And yes she did get the best of our forces. But their have been countless times when we have gotten the best of the oppositions forces with our old, loud, inefficient nuclear submarines. And although you may not value experience, as most people that have never done something but claim to know everything often do, you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.


----------



## A Voice

blueman271 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a mistake to assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I do. The subs are an *easy* example, though I exaggerated regarding the heat signature (nothing is really zero -- it's just low-heat enough to pass for a fish):
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383
> 
> http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1241-modern-dieselelectric-and-aip-subs-vs-nuclear-subs/
> 
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html
> 
> And finally...
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3470/australia-is-getting-the-baddest-diesel-electric-submarines-on-the-planet
> 
> These aren't even the sources I originally learned about this from.
> 
> It's not the batteries which are ultra-silent, it's the submarines, as should be obvious. The nuclear subs are too loud to be competitive for the majority of submarine missions, and the newest diesel-electrics work for everything with the exception of the "blow up the world" MAD "deterrent", which we really shouldn't be doing anyway. But the US has an institutional bias towards buying more nuclear subs, so we're not buying the better electric subs.
> 
> Yes, all the other stuff I said can be equally well cited. I advise using Google.
> 
> The Military Reform Movement (of whom Chuck Spinney is probably the loudest still active, and I strongly recommend his blog) would blame all of this misprocurement and militarily-counterproductive spending on what they call the "military-industrial-congressional complex". Procurement decisions are simply not made for military purposes; they are made for "feeding at the trough". This accounts for the tank graveyard, the ships the Navy doesn't want, etc.
> 
> Often all one needs to become better at a subject than most people is to know enough to know *how to evaluate who to listen to*, and then do your research. I do a *lot* of research. There are many areas on which I am not an expert but I have studied them long enough to know who the experts are *and* which experts actually know what they're doing. I have corrected poor decisions made by people with "real world experience", or simply outwitted them, often enough. I respect experience greatly -- used right it is very valuable. But used wrong, it can also be very narrow-minded and limiting.
> 
> Now, if you are honorable, I expect you to apologize for your unfounded, evidence-free, and incorrect accusation against my honesty and against my knowledge level. I'm waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only will I not apologize I say again that you do not know what you are talking about. You have an idea in your head so you found 'sources' that support that idea. However misinformed and wrongheaded it may be. Read the first few paragraphs on page two of the first link. They start to spell out the reason why America maintains and continues to build nuclear submarines.
> Furthermore, you have no idea what the vast majority of submarine missions are. You may be able to sit in front of your computer and make assumptions but they are not 'educated' or 'smart'. Your research will never turn up the true mission of the Navy's submarines because the Navy does not and never has disclosed the majority of those missions.
> 
> You say that diesel electric submarines reduce their heat signature to that of a fish which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ill informed at best. Submarines are tracked by their sound or magnetic profile not by their 'heat' signature. And as far as quieting goes there are various ways to make a nuclear submarine as quiet as an AIP diesel boat. But again your 'research' won't tell you this because the Navy does not disclose their methods.
> 
> Finally, the Gotland is an amazing boat with an amazing crew. And yes she did get the best of our forces. But their have been countless times when we have gotten the best of the oppositions forces with our old, loud, inefficient nuclear submarines. And although you may not value experience, as most people that have never done something but claim to know everything often do, you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. It was informative. We can all fall into the trap of thinking we know more than we really do at times, which is something we need to keep in mind both here and elsewhere. It is too easy on the web to 'cherry-pick' evidence which looks and sounds convincing to support a pre-determined and desired conclusion, and often too difficult to tell objective, fact-based sources from biased ones.


----------



## Ryan

blueman271 said:


> you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.


Yet in all of that time, you've not learned to treat people with respect.

Good thing you're not on one of my boats, shipmate.


----------



## Carolina Special

When it comes to defense issues I find that regularly scanning the Real Clear Defense and Strategy Page web sites to be most helpful. You can't limit yourself to one viewpoint. But I do tend to look at most of what Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan put out. I may be an amateur, but I try to be an informed one, and I do have a couple of army officers as relatives to straighten me out.

As for aircraft carriers being outmoded, the recent planned or in service construction by the Brits, Japanese and especially the Chinese suggest that other parties think they're still important in the next couple of decades. It is not just the US building new ones.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Well said on the technical aspects Blueman, but perhaps your time underwater has taken a toll on your social skills?

And thanks for your service!(I'm an Ex-Tin Can RM-2 who was stationed at New London/Groton Sub Base my last year of Naval service!)


----------



## keelhauled

I would say that the conversation devolved with the previous post, full of smug superiority and condescension. But I suppose that describes more of the forum these days than this one thread.


----------



## ehbowen

keelhauled said:


> I would say that the conversation devolved with the previous post, full of smug superiority and condescension. But I suppose that describes more of the forum these days than this one thread.


Regrettably, it describes much more than this forum, or even the Internet in general....


----------



## Carolina Special

I believe most of us on this board would like to see more Amtrak services provided in some fashion, particularly beyond the NEC. How we get there when we come from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences and views on a number of topics can be tough to reconcile on a message board.

Take money from here to pay for more Amtrak or take it from the other fellow behind the tree. Let's look at LD service above the rail versus looking at the business in the entirety. Some differences (not all) could be worked out if we met in person, but not in a few paragraphs on a message board. It is the nature of the beast.


----------



## blueman271

Ryan said:


> blueman271 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should know that I am a submariner and have been for the last eleven years.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet in all of that time, you've not learned to treat people with respect.Good thing you're not on one of my boats, shipmate.
Click to expand...

That's rich coming from you since you are the king of condescension on this forum. But I guess it takes one to know one right shipmate.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

I have to admit, there is also one thing that makes no sense. After all the hard work Amtrak has done to get those new Viewliner II's to replace the much older cars, Trump wants to cut the funding for Long-Distance trains! It makes no sense, because the Viewliner II's are designed SPECIFICALLY for long-distance service. And while these new cars are still being built, Trump now wants to cut them? I find that wasteful!


----------



## Carolina Special

Well from the perspective of the other side, the Viewliner II sleepers were being built in 2015, 2016 and now 2017 without any finished cars to show for it. Amtrak's most recent five year budget plan had these in service by now: that is wasteful on the revenue and expense side. If I were opposing Amtrak LD trains in Congress, I'd be all over that.

And it makes it that much harder to justify the 1000+ cars that Amtrak wants in the early 2020s if they can't get the Viewliner II orders done on a timely basis. And I believe Amtrak will need most of those for the equipment that will wear out over the next ten years.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Amtrak isn't building the cars, and therefore is not necessarily responsible for the problems concerning them. Besides, perhaps, selecting a contractor that has no experience building FRA compliant cars for US service.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak isn't building the cars, and therefore is not necessarily responsible for the problems concerning them.


Isn't part of CAF's problems due to the 100% "Buy America" requirement imposed by Congress?

The sole American supplier of 'thingamajigs' went broke, out of business, bulldozed the factory, no? Of course, CAF could easily find a European supplier of 'thingamajigs', but cannot use imports on the cars they are building.

This problem could be what's totally blocking any option or add-on order for even another 10 or 25 more Viewliners.


----------



## RSG

Isn’t there a provision where they can get around that by simply building (or buying) a factory in the US to assemble/produce compliant cars with sourced parts from wherever? Isn’t that what Alstom is doing with their operations in New York [state]?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

RSG said:


> ... simply building (or buying) a factory in the US to assemble/produce compliant cars with sourced parts from wherever? Isn’t that what Alstom is doing with their operations in New York [state]?


CAF bought a factory at Elmira, New York state, but it can't use imported parts. The Stimulus funding, maybe all federal rail funding, requires 100% "Buy American".

I don't expect to see any imported parts used in building Avelia HSR cars at Hornell, in Western New York state, about 65 miles west of the CAF assembly plant.


----------



## jis

Meanwhile , Siemens built and delivered the Brightline sets using 100% "Build America", even though they were legally not required to be 100% "Build America" compliant.


----------



## Anderson

Chiming in on the military stuff, I will say that trying to pin down who is responsible for "misprocurement" is a tough one. For example, there are some fun stories of one branch grabbing another branch's project more or less for the purpose of killing it off.

There are also projects that were/weren't "wanted" or "needed" which the military pushed (or didn't push) for political reasons. I know that I can't necessarily trust a Congresscritter to push what the military needs; that doesn't mean that I can trust the guy on the other side of the hearing table just because he's got stars on his shoulders. I /know/ I don't trust the guy with stars not to monkey around with budget estimates (or to not be the victim of his staff monkeying around with them). For what it's worth, I also tend to suspect that most or all of the parties involved are doing their best for their respective agendas.

Swinging back around to Amtrak, this is actually a decent analogy: The best evidence is that George Warrington was, shall we say, less than truthful about the position Amtrak was in during his tenure. But in doing that he made a big gamble and got us the Acelas.

===== ===== ===== ===== =====

@CSXFoamer1997 (and others):
There are two broad issues there. Carolina Special hit on one of them (the cars were supposed to be delivered YEARS ago), though that could be worked around if a competent vendor were used. The other issue is that the asked-for cut to Amtrak was a "wish list" item that (as I noted earlier in the thread) probably wasn't even realistic in anyone's mind, it was a case of "round up the usual suspects so we can say we submitted a neutral budget and move on".

For the most part, my understanding is that there is some wiggle room on the "Buy American" requirements if the parts simply cannot be sourced (or can't be sourced at anything resembling a competitive price). Moreover:
(1) As jis noted, Siemens was able to make it work; and
(2) Even setting aside Siemens' success, CAF submitted the bid and in doing so either implicitly or explicitly said they could make it work (as did Bombardier-Alstom, IIRC...and as did Nippon-Sharyo, though they've had other issues). If the requirements were impossible, CAF should not have bid and if they submitted a bid that they knew they could not complete then I /think/ that counts as fraud. If they submitted a bid that they thought they could complete and the reason they ultimately could not wasn't just a pile of change orders or other issues from Amtrak (or some sort of external mess like a supply chain collapse...in which case I suspect we'd have been hearing about them filing for waivers as a result*), then they're just incompetent.

The "Buy American" rules are a reason for someone not to bid. They are NOT a reason for someone to bid and then be unable to deliver.

*The posts above are the first I'm hearing that there's some sort of "missing part" to blame for the CAF order falling apart. The early excuse had to do with them not knowing, in so many words, how to install a plumbing system in a sleeper along with some change orders.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Meanwhile , Siemens built and delivered the Brightline sets using 100% "Build America", even though they were legally not required to be 100% "Build America" compliant.


I guess Siemens considered that order a springboard to further orders. So it wasn't as much about doing the minimum as it was about showing what could be done.


----------



## cirdan

RSG said:


> Isn’t there a provision where they can get around that by simply building (or buying) a factory in the US to assemble/produce compliant cars with sourced parts from wherever? Isn’t that what Alstom is doing with their operations in New York [state]?


Not really, as sub-suppliers also need to demonstrate their contribution towards the whole, all the way down the value-add chain.

But possibly companies such as CAF or Siemens in which one subsidiary of the same group buys from another subsidiary of the same group, there can be tricks done with foreign sourced components being purchased at below cost value, and the profits then being siphoned back to compensate.

I don't know how difficult it would be to prevent or even detect that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Meanwhile the tar sands crude oil pipeline isn't bound by any "buy American" requirement as it transports and spills foreign oil across previously untainted land and fresh water drinking supplies.


----------



## keelhauled

WoodyinNYC said:


> I don't expect to see any imported parts used in building Avelia HSR cars at Hornell, in Western New York state, about 65 miles west of the CAF assembly plant.


The exact language Amtrak uses is "More than 95 percent of trainset components will be manufactured domestically."


----------



## WoodyinNYC

keelhauled said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect to see any imported parts used in building Avelia HSR cars at Hornell, in Western New York state, about 65 miles west of the CAF assembly plant.
> 
> 
> 
> The exact language Amtrak uses is "More than 95 percent of trainset components will be manufactured domestically."
Click to expand...

Well, there you are. Amtrak is financing the Avelias thru the RRIF (or RIFF?) loan from the FRA, without any money direct from Congress, which probably would not have been so flexible.

The Stimulus projects were 100% "Buy American", a more strict requirement than usual, when typically there's a 10% exception. The CAF order isn't from Stimulus funds, but it is from the Congressionally-approved annual subsidy. I'm pretty sure it is also 100% "Buy American."

I expect that the extreme 100% requirement wasn't put there by the haters in Congress wanting to make things ever difficult for Amtrak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> *The posts above are the first I'm hearing that there's some sort of "missing part" to blame for the CAF order falling apart.





> Columbus Castings was operating until ... a bankruptcy filing by the company’s owner.
> 
> Reich Brothers narrowly outbid a private-equity firm that had plans to reopen the plant.
> 
> The foundry was the only manufacturer in the country for certain parts for rail-car undercarriages. The rail industry, however, has experienced a sharp decline because of falling coal and oil shipments.
> 
> 
> One question throughout the bankruptcy process was what rail-car makers would do to get the parts in the absence of this key supplier. Reich said he may sell some of the assets to another parts manufacturer, but added that there is no current plan to do so.


Source, the _Columbus Dispatch_:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/08/18/columbus-castings-new-owner.html


----------



## jis

There are other alternative manufacturers of those parts. However, since they did not have any contract in place to supply them, it takes a little time to come upto speed on the manufacturing line.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Budget "waste" is a cool concept, because it is both truth and nonsense at the same time.

The US Capitol building is an expensive and beautiful edifice representing US power and prestige. However, all Congress really needs is two lecture halls of appropriate size, as seen in college campuses, and a few office buildings to house their staff and a few hearing rooms. Few people would consider the Capitol a waste, but in terms of bare bones requirements, it certainly is. It's need is ephemeral.

Public parks, high speed roadways, rail, public library's... all of these things are not absolutely essential, and can be termed waste. Except they provide for the public welfare in various ways, to various degrees.

Waste is defined as things one pays for but does not use.

The truth is, there is nobody who sits around figuring out how to bonfire as much taxpayer money as possible.

Every project makes sense to someone, in terms of defense, or beneficial infrastructure, or economic development, public enjoyment, or employment, or a show project to help with re-election.

Very little of the waste comes from individual projects. Most of it comes from massive profiteering from the private contractors that build those projects. I do happen to think our military is oversized and geared to fight a type of war that doesn't exist anymore- forget about the power source of our submarines- what the heck do we need them for in the first place? It's an outmoded form of combat, because the few operators who would be in a position to take a serious arguing posture with a US Navy warship can detect our submarines easily.

But on the other hand, having such weapons available if China or Russia can get serious about underwater boats... so is it waste?


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact language Amtrak uses is "More than 95 percent of trainset components will be manufactured domestically."
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you are. Amtrak is financing the Avelias thru the RRIF (or RIFF?) loan from the FRA, without any money direct from Congress, which probably would not have been so flexible.
> The Stimulus projects were 100% "Buy American", a more strict requirement than usual, when typically there's a 10% exception. The CAF order isn't from Stimulus funds, but it is from the Congressionally-approved annual subsidy. I'm pretty sure it is also 100% "Buy American."
> 
> I expect that the extreme 100% requirement wasn't put there by the haters in Congress wanting to make things ever difficult for Amtrak.
Click to expand...

No, Amtrak got a waiver from the FRA for the Buy America requirements for components in the Avelia (aka Acela II) 28 trainset order. The 100% Buy America rule applies to RRIF loan funding, which is one (major) reason the RRIF loan program has been underutilized. The waiver was granted for the Aluminum car body shells, vehicle paint, and brake system components. Which presumably leaves the 95% to be sourced from US manufacturers. Getting the FRA waiver took Amtrak well over a year, IIRC,

The 100% Buy America requirements was not put in to make things difficult for Amtrak. It applies to federal funding for transit agencies, and probably a whole bunch of other federal grants. The 100% requirement drives up acquisition costs, by a lot in some cases. Even a 90% rule, however that 90% is determined, would save a lot of money. But in the Trump era, how many politicians are going to vote for a 90% Buy America rule? Makes for easy attack ads in the next election. I await the day Congress puts in a 110% Buy America requirement. Yes, 110% of the parts must be made in America!


----------



## RSG

Green Maned Lion said:


> The US Capitol building is an expensive and beautiful edifice representing US power and prestige. However, all Congress really needs is two lecture halls of appropriate size, as seen in college campuses, and a few office buildings to house their staff and a few hearing rooms. Few people would consider the Capitol a waste, but in terms of bare bones requirements, it certainly is. It's need is ephemeral.


Except that the US Capitol wasn’t always overrun with excess space; the Supreme Court was also housed there until they moved into their own digs. In fact, that’s a better example of overkill, since when does a court need such a massive edifice which looks more like a memorial than a functional building? Yet, I would imagine part of the reason was to impart an air of confidence and everlasting hope at a time in the nation’s history when despair was rampant and hope in short supply.
To extrapolate another example, my state capitol is undergoing a multi-year renovation which will triple the number of committee meeting rooms. Previously, there was adequate space for most of upper-level state government for most of the year. But when the legislature is in session, rooms which are normally offices became cramped meeting spaces. Point being, when you need the space you need the space, even if you don’t need it 365 days/year. Would it be that we lived in the Harry Potter universe where buildings could automatically expand and contract based on the needs at any given time.

So it is with Amtrak. There are probably non-passenger citizens who step outside a bar or on their porch for a smoke (or while waiting at a crossing) during a station stop in January and February and see empty seats in the coach cars and think “What a waste! No wonder the federal budget wants to eliminate long distance trains.” But they don’t realize that during June/July/August the cars are full, or that unlike the airlines, Amtrak can’t just move equipment around to fit the amount of passengers at any given time.



> But on the other hand, having such weapons available if China or Russia can get serious about underwater boats... so is it waste?


Or are all the missles a waste if the 'Little Fat Kid' in North Korea decides to see if some of his new toys down the line will get rid of some of his bullies?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I'm not sure this is new news but this USA Today article does discuss the cuts in more detail. They highlight the LSL and the lack of ability to go coast to coast or to the South and Midwest (assuming this is from the eastern point of view).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/n ... 100395912/


----------



## tomfuller

Did anyone else notice that the #4 length route is the Sunset Limited from ORLANDO to Los Angeles?

How many stations has Amtrak remodeled or replaced in the past 12 years? I like what they did to my home station of Chemult Oregon.


----------



## jis

tomfuller said:


> Did anyone else notice that the #4 length route is the Sunset Limited from ORLANDO to Los Angeles?


Also it must travel through some sort of a worm hole to manage to travel from Orlando to Los Angeles covering only 1995 miles


----------



## gabbygrrl

If this budget does pass, and they end up cutting long distance service, when would it take effect? Can I book something for this November? Or will it take until 2018 for anything to actually happen?


----------



## A Voice

gabbygrrl said:


> If this budget does pass, and they end up cutting long distance service, when would it take effect? Can I book something for this November? Or will it take until 2018 for anything to actually happen?


The budget isn't going to pass as originally proposed; It _never_ does. To answer your question, though, the next fiscal year starts October 1st, and in theory any programs not funded would end as of that date. However, Congress very rarely anymore passes any sort of budget by the deadline and agencies (including Amtrak) are funded by a continuing resolution (CR) at previous levels.

In short, November is safe. But, so is 2018.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

GabbyGirl: although Trump could change this, the substantial curtailment or removal of a route requires a 180-day Train-Off notice, and provision for public comment.

So you get 6-months. And the uproar from such a cancellation would probably result in some of those trains regaining funding through various means. At least temporarily. Trumps budget doesn't forbid Amtrak from running LD trains, it defunds them. They can be funded through other means, and it is likely Congress itself would reverse some or all of that, once it actually goes into effect.

The problem at this moment is that the various people who fight for this stuff are being stupid (literal defintion: being in a stupor and failing to respond in a reasoned manner) and assuming it won't get far enough that a budget will actually pass doing so. If it actually does, they will likely cease being so stupid.



RSG said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US Capitol building is an expensive and beautiful edifice representing US power and prestige. However, all Congress really needs is two lecture halls of appropriate size, as seen in college campuses, and a few office buildings to house their staff and a few hearing rooms. Few people would consider the Capitol a waste, but in terms of bare bones requirements, it certainly is. It's need is ephemeral.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the US Capitol wasnt always overrun with excess space; the Supreme Court was also housed there until they moved into their own digs. In fact, thats a better example of overkill, since when does a court need such a massive edifice which looks more like a memorial than a functional building? Yet, I would imagine part of the reason was to impart an air of confidence and everlasting hope at a time in the nations history when despair was rampant and hope in short supply.
> To extrapolate another example, my state capitol is undergoing a multi-year renovation which will triple the number of committee meeting rooms. Previously, there was adequate space for most of upper-level state government for most of the year. But when the legislature is in session, rooms which are normally offices became cramped meeting spaces. Point being, when you need the space you need the space, even if you dont need it 365 days/year. Would it be that we lived in the Harry Potter universe where buildings could automatically expand and contract based on the needs at any given time.
> 
> So it is with Amtrak. There are probably non-passenger citizens who step outside a bar or on their porch for a smoke (or while waiting at a crossing) during a station stop in January and February and see empty seats in the coach cars and think What a waste! No wonder the federal budget wants to eliminate long distance trains. But they dont realize that during June/July/August the cars are full, or that unlike the airlines, Amtrak cant just move equipment around to fit the amount of passengers at any given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on the other hand, having such weapons available if China or Russia can get serious about underwater boats... so is it waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or are all the missles a waste if the 'Little Fat Kid' in North Korea decides to see if some of his new toys down the line will get rid of some of his bullies?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the space present in the Capitol building. I was talking about its grandiose design and ornamentation and expensive materials. An appropriately sized brutalist structure with 8ft ceilings made out of brick would do the job just as well. The question is, is it a waste to spend money on the purpose of demonstrating might, power, beauty, hope, and wealth?

I personally think that our country building a Capital building (Capitol is the name of our nations Capital building) that showed the hopes and dreams our nation had at the time it was built was not a waste. At the time we were a tiny little nebbish who defeated a large navy run by an arrogant and inept king. We were insurgent antimonarch liberals who had a lot of infighting (then as now) and we needed to demonstrate- to ourselves as well as others - that we really were a nation of United States (to quote Lincoln) "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

It was a radical idea at the time. We were small and weak, our federal government very weakly funded and always on the brink of financial collapse (it would remain so until the creation of income tax). To capture the belief of its people, our country built a magnificent structure, creating a building- an independant city, even- to rally around.

This building, being more than was absolutely required to run a bare-bones government, could be considered waste- but its purpose had purpose. Understanding the value of self-esteem, which we have come to not have- even patriots ring hollow these days- is the key to understanding how to make America great.

We aren't close to united. We sit around kvetching about who gets what, and how we pay taxes for things that don't directly help us, and god forbid, supporting our fellow man. Because people define freedom as the right to be a rotten human being without being given the respect (or rather lack of respect) a rotten human being deserves.

I'm ranting, but I do wish to point out that I am doing so non politically. This problem is entirely bi-partisan. Support for Amtrak is a matter of denying minuscule amounts of money in order to provide additional transportation. It's about denying things to people because providing this costs you less than a buck a year, and god forbid anybody ever contribute and share for what in the long term would be mutual benefit.

And that's the problem with our country- we have learned to discourage long term investment even if it's cost for all involved is much greater to all involved. I love how we save money on road investment. I've replaced four front tires and had 3 suspension alignments this year in honor of all the money we save. End rant.


----------



## ehbowen

gabbygrrl said:


> If this budget does pass, and they end up cutting long distance service, when would it take effect? Can I book something for this November? Or will it take until 2018 for anything to actually happen?


You get to share the experience I had when I booked a round-trip from Houston to L.A. in sleeper for eleven family members, seven of whom were first-time Amtrak travelers, in July 2005 for travel in May 2006...and then had GWB propose cutting all funding to Amtrak with the intent of driving it into bankruptcy. Had that occurred I couldn't even be sure of getting my ticket purchase refunded...unsecured creditors can be far down the line in an actual bankruptcy, although political considerations could have weighed events in our favor. I did purchase trip insurance (mainly for medical coverage...2 seniors and 6 young children), but there still could have been some issues and certainly some hassle.

However, I am pleased to report that the trip came out well and all of the extended family enjoyed it very much...even in spite of Simplified Dining Service which was in effect at the time.


----------



## A Voice

Green Maned Lion said:


> GabbyGirl: although Trump could change this, the substantial curtailment or removal of a route requires a 180-day Train-Off notice, and provision for public comment.
> 
> So you get 6-months. And the uproar from such a cancellation would probably result in some of those trains regaining funding through various means. At least temporarily. Trumps budget doesn't forbid Amtrak from running LD trains, it defunds them. They can be funded through other means, and it is likely Congress itself would reverse some or all of that, once it actually goes into effect.
> 
> The problem at this moment is that the various people who fight for this stuff are being stupid (literal defintion: being in a stupor and failing to respond in a reasoned manner) and assuming it won't get far enough that a budget will actually pass doing so. If it actually does, they will likely cease being so stupid.


No 180-day notice of discontinuance is required when service is eliminated due to lack of appropriations. That said, you cannot just shut the system down overnight; Preparations would have to be made. Potentially, in a political debacle which omitted funding at the 11th hour or something, Amtrak might well have sufficient resources to limp along for a few weeks (or months) until Congress got its act together and restored funding.

Oh, and those of us saying the Trump proposed budget will not pass are not being stupid by any definition. We just know history and how the political process works. The time will come - and soon enough - to let your voice be heard to our elected officials.


----------



## jis

Yup. Rep Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Chair of Appropriations Committee of the House has pretty much said that the House intends to write its own budget and not adopt the President's proposals as is. So there will be plenty of opportunity to modulate and moderate what comes out the other end. These guys, including Frelinghuysen himself, has to get re-elected in a year and a half. Incidentally we will be meeting him week after next during NARP's Day on the Hill too. So we will get a better pulse of what is going on. We will also be meeting Menedez, Booker and Nelson on the Senate side, among others.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> gabbygrrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this budget does pass, and they end up cutting long distance service, when would it take effect? Can I book something for this November? Or will it take until 2018 for anything to actually happen?
> 
> 
> 
> The budget isn't going to pass as originally proposed; It _never_ does. To answer your question, though, the next fiscal year starts October 1st, and in theory any programs not funded would end as of that date. However, Congress very rarely anymore passes any sort of budget by the deadline and agencies (including Amtrak) are funded by a continuing resolution (CR) at previous levels. In short, November is safe. But, so is 2018.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the folks behind the zeroed out budget from the Executive branch and the folks behind the zeroed out budget from the Legislative branch will eventually reach a compromise where all funding is restored. Wait, what?

Good thing Amtrak has strong support by...

The President's Advisors

A majority in the House

A majority in the Senate

...whoops.


----------



## A Voice

Sorry, editing mistake and duplicate post.


----------



## A Voice

Devil's Advocate said:


> the zeroed out budget from the Legislative branch


The House or Senate has released some preliminary budget numbers? Source please.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> the zeroed out budget from the Legislative branch
> 
> 
> 
> The House or Senate has released some preliminary budget numbers? Source please.
Click to expand...

 My source is two decades of hearing that Amtrak needs to be self sufficient, that it doesn't deserve continuing long term subsidies, and that the commuter corridors should be opened up to privatization. Realistically Ryan is probably more of a 15-20% reduction per annum kind of a guy. That's still enough to wipe out most of the LD network between now and the next practical window for seriously changing course. If Ryan waivers or backs off he risks sparking another round of attacks and eventually another primary battle. He's been safe in past but he's in dangerous waters there's no rule or restriction that can prevent him from being ostracized and extricated just like John Boehner before him.


----------



## Carolina Special

The long run concern that I have is the mountain of unfunded capital spending that will be needed to pay for all the repairs and fixes in the northeast and for all the replacement fleet vehicles (1,000 plus wanted) Amtrak will need in the 2020s. Some of that can be put off temporarily, but not forever. And we're talking billions, not just hundreds of millions, just to keep things going.

That seems like a bigger long-term threat than the current budget process.


----------



## TinCan782

An interesting graphic which compares side-by-side, before and after.

"A visualization shows hundreds of cities that would lose long-distance trains under the president’s proposed budget."

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/mapping-amtrak-service-before-and-after-the-trump-budget/523338/?utm_source=feed


----------



## Thirdrail7

I suppose this should go under the Budget thread, but these two paragraphs are key:



> How likely is it Congress will embrace the White House’s vision when it receives its more-detailed budget (which typically happens in mid-May)? Since the railroad association put out its alert it has witnessed a “huge public outpouring,” with thousands of its members calling their elected representatives, says Sean Jeans-Gail, vice president of government affairs and policy. “We can verify Congress is hearing this outcry, and they’re taking notice. We’ve seen a shift among Republicans from guarded, noncommittal statements to guarded statements that emphasize that Congress has the power of the purse. That’s progress.”
> 
> Trump-leaning politicians might want to listen to these voices, as many of them are coming from the rural denizens that fed the president’s rise to power. “The majority of passengers on these trains aren’t using them to go from big city to big city,” says Jim Mathews, the railroad association’s president and CEO. “They’re small-town Americans who don’t have a lot of transportation alternatives. The ridership figures on these trains are lower because the towns they serve are smaller. If you live in McGregor, Texas, and you’re trying to get to Fort Worth for business or a medical procedure, the [Texas] Eagle is as important to you as the Northeast Corridor is to a New Yorker—probably more important, since Temple doesn’t have access to a LaGuardia or JFK.”


Some of the off corridor trains are just as important to their riders as the NEC is to the passengers they serve. Hopefully, the message is delivered.


----------



## Poindexter118

I wrote a letter to President Trump asking him to reconsider cutting Amtrak funding. I haven't heard back from him, but I'm sure I'm not alone in requesting to keep Amtrak with a good budget.

I also wrote a letter to our Senator in California asking her to vote against the budget concerning Amtrak.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

According to Amtrak reports they are only off by 6% from the break even point, surely if push comes to shove 6% could be temporarily made up for in one way or another.... 6% "making America great" surcharge on all tickets with a message about making small sacrifices to bigly support the most tremendous yuge president....


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

Poindexter118 said:


> I wrote a letter to President Trump asking him to reconsider cutting Amtrak funding. I haven't heard back from him, but I'm sure I'm not alone in requesting to keep Amtrak with a good budget.
> 
> I also wrote a letter to our Senator in California asking her to vote against the budget concerning Amtrak.


Good for you, man!


----------



## siena1965

i don't think trumps budgets cuts for Amtrak is going to make America great again. i hope he does not get away with this.


----------



## Don Newcomb

I wish there was a way to subsidize Amtrak's long-haul trains that didn't involve the general fund. I'd support a few cents increase in gasoline taxes dedicated for that purpose. Unfortunately, there's little political motivation for increasing any taxes right now. Trump, wants to cut taxes, at least for some people. I'd like to see a radical change in what the US taxes, moving generally from taxing productivity to taxing consumption, even though this would hurt me personally. I believe it's the only way we can start manufacturing stuff here in America again.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Don Newcomb said:


> ... I'd support a few cents increase in gasoline taxes ... a radical change in what the US taxes, moving generally from taxing productivity to taxing consumption ..


The gasoline tax at the national level has been flat for years and years. With inflation it has been cut, actually. Any increase in the gas tax would be good in simple fairness, to help phase out air pollution, to cut greenhouse gases contributing to global heating, and to reduce our tendency to get into wars in areas where oil is plentiful but peace is rare.

The tax on alcohol (beer, wine, liquor) at the national level has been flat, again for decades, in effect a 'sin tax' cut.

There's no national tax on 'soft drinks' like Coke, Pepsi, Diet Coke, Arizona Iced Tea, etc. that appear to contribute heavily to the national obesity epidemic and the rise in diabetes.

Of course, legalizing marijuana at the national level would allow a federal tax on it to produce millions in revenue, while cutting wasted tax money going to cops, courts, and prisons.

Looks like $1 or $2 Billion a year for new equipment could easily be budgeted to renew and expand the fleet. Likewise $4 or $5 Billion a year might be the realistic amount, the cap, really, on what could be invested in passenger rail infrastructure, given the long lead time on projects -- the studies, the public outreach, the engineering, and the construction. (That's spending for Amtrak, not counting the NEC or CAHSR, and before any subsidies for expanded service.) These modest sums are easily affordable by our great country, easily payable with modest new taxes on consumption.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

WoodyinNYC said:


> There's no national tax on 'soft drinks' like Coke, Pepsi, Diet Coke, Arizona Iced Tea, etc. that appear to contribute heavily to the national obesity epidemic and the rise in diabetes.


No but there is a soft drink tax in Philly now. There's plenty of people who pushed to stop the tax before it was implemented and still push to have it repealed.



WoodyinNYC said:


> Of course, legalizing marijuana at the national level would allow a federal tax on it to produce millions in revenue, while cutting wasted tax money going to cops, courts, and prisons.
> 
> Looks like $1 or $2 Billion a year for new equipment could easily be budgeted to renew and expand the fleet. Likewise $4 or $5 Billion a year might be the realistic amount, the cap, really, on what could be invested in passenger rail infrastructure, given the long lead time on projects -- the studies, the public outreach, the engineering, and the construction. (That's spending for Amtrak, not counting the NEC or CAHSR, and before any subsidies for expanded service.) These modest sums are easily affordable by our great country, easily payable with modest new taxes on consumption.


I think it's a given what I would expect is included in that $4-$5 billion.

I hope for that money there are more new routes and new areas (Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, etc) served.


----------



## Carolina Special

How about taxing coffee instead? The Starbucks tax to fund Amtrak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no national tax on 'soft drinks' ... that appear to contribute heavily to the national obesity epidemic and the rise in diabetes.
> 
> 
> 
> No but there is a soft drink tax in Philly now. There's plenty of people who pushed to stop the tax before it was implemented and still push to have it repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, legalizing marijuana at the national level would allow a federal tax on it to produce millions in revenue ...
> 
> ... $4 or $5 Billion a year might be the realistic amount, the cap, really, on what could be invested in passenger rail infrastructure, given the long lead time on projects -- the studies, the public outreach, the engineering, and the construction. (That's spending ... before any subsidies for expanded service.) These modest sums are easily affordable by our great country, easily payable with modest new taxes on consumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's a given what I would expect is included in that $4-$5 billion.
> 
> I hope for that money there are more new routes and new areas (Vegas, Nashville, Columbus, etc) served.
Click to expand...

We may be getting off topic. But I'd put the $4 or $5 Billion into upgrading corridors, the way the Stimulus money was invested. So more money into CHI-St Louis and CHI-Detroit, and then CHI-Indy-Cincy/Louisville-Lexington KY, CHI-TOL-CLE, Detroit-TOL-CLE-PGH, CHI-Ft Wayne-Columbus, CHI-Madison-St Paul, CHI-Memphis, Mobile-Biloxi-New Orleans, New Orleans-Baton Rouge, New Orleans-Lafayette-Houston-San Antonio, Orlando-Jacksonville-Tallahassee, D.C.-Richmond, Richmond-Petersburg-rebuilt 'S'-line-Raleigh, L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Louis-Obispo-San Jose, among others. And I'd happily promise Congress, no new LD routes for 10 years (except daily _Cardinal and Sunset Ltd, CONO_ extended to Orlando, and maybe the flavor du jour, ATL-Meridien-Jackson-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth).

Of course, all of these corridor trains overlap, or feed traffic to, existing LD lines. And the expansions would help to spread the overhead of system-wide fixed costs more widely, to less heavily burden each existing train -- LD, NEC, or state-supported.

Perhaps soonish Amtrak can claim that half of its LD trains actually make a positive contribution or at least break even: (_AutoTrain, Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Crescent, Lake Shore Ltd, Coast Starlight, CONO?, Cardinal_ if possible to go daily with three sets not four needed?). THEN it will be in a good position to propose new or revived LD routes.


----------



## RSG

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no national tax on 'soft drinks' like Coke, Pepsi, Diet Coke, Arizona Iced Tea, etc. that appear to contribute heavily to the national obesity epidemic and the rise in diabetes.
> 
> 
> 
> No but there is a soft drink tax in Philly now. There's plenty of people who pushed to stop the tax before it was implemented and still push to have it repealed.
Click to expand...

Which, I would note appears to be failing miserably at bringing in the projected revenue, while businesses outside the City & County are doing bang-up sales in soda (or what anything Philadelphia legally calls "soda").

Meanwhile, NYC is poised to proudly hike the cigarette tax. Apparently they didn't learn anything from the Eric Garner incident.

Having consumption taxes is one thing; using them just to generate excess revenue or control behavior is something else.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

RSG said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no national tax on 'soft drinks' like Coke, Pepsi, Diet Coke, Arizona Iced Tea, etc. that appear to contribute heavily to the national obesity epidemic and the rise in diabetes.
> 
> 
> 
> ... there is a soft drink tax in Philly now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which ... appears to be failing miserably at bringing in the projected revenue, while businesses outside the City & County are doing bang-up sales in soda (or what anything Philadelphia legally calls "soda").
> 
> Meanwhile, NYC is poised to proudly hike the cigarette tax. Apparently they didn't learn anything from the Eric Garner incident.
Click to expand...

Cigarette taxes vary widely from state to state, and city to city. New York State ($4.35) a pack) and New York City have very high taxes, which is said to have helped reduce the rate of smoking.

But the tobacco-growing states like Virginia (30¢ a pack), Georgia (37¢), and North Carolina (45¢) have very low rates.

The price differences, of course, calls forth investors who arbitrage the markets. In this business, it's the Mob. The gangsters buy truckloads of cigarettes in the South, and tho it is illegal to do so, send them to the North to sell in competition with highly taxed and therefore high priced legal cigarettes. (Funny how the police were willing to kill Eric Garner for his illegal marketing efforts -- Black Lives Don't Matter to cops? -- but they seem completely unable to stop the Mob from its activities.)

In any case, a high national tax could not so easily be circumvented. Not unless or until someone begins to send low tax cigarettes over or under the magnificent Wall we are all getting ready to pay for instead of investing in better trains. (Keeping my rant On Topic.)

I'd like to see a national tax of at least $4 a pack, and would be happier to see $5 a pack. NY State and NY City then might, or might not, lower their rates in order to undermine the Mob's arbitrage. I'd bet on 'Not'.


----------



## winterskigirl

President Trump thinks like a businessman and not a politician. He will most likely push for cuts to those routes loosing money. Same goes for other federal programs loosing too much money. He said he's going to drain the swamp and that includes spending. Elections have consequences but remember that Congress has to approve the budget and allot can happen before it is finalized.


----------



## A Voice

winterskigirl said:


> President Trump thinks like a businessman and not a politician. He will most likely push for cuts to those routes loosing money.


That would mean he would push to cut _every single route or train Amtrak operates_, including Acela and the Northeast Corridor (and again, that's *not* happening). They all lose money (aside from the 'polite fiction' of above the rail profit).


----------



## afigg

winterskigirl said:


> President Trump thinks like a businessman and not a politician. He will most likely push for cuts to those routes loosing money. Same goes for other federal programs loosing too much money. He said he's going to drain the swamp and that includes spending. Elections have consequences but remember that Congress has to approve the budget and allot can happen before it is finalized.


When discussing the budget slashing proposals from the Trump administration, it is quite likely that President Trump himself has not even read the budget specifics for the various transportation department items, let alone has had said anything to his staff about funding the Amtrak LD routes. That is, if Trump is even aware of Amtrak's long distance trains. It has become quite clear that Trump is not a details guy at all. Not even close. So let's not talk about the budget cut proposals as something Trump himself is involved in. The decisions on what is in the Administrations proposed budgets are being made by the staffers, the ideologues who have landed positions in the White House and agency heads. I suggest we stick to referring to the proposed budget as coming from the "Trump Administration" and not Trump himself in any way.

Besides the appropriations funding amounts from Congress, what will matter to Amtrak is who fills the key positions in the Department of Transportation, like the head of the FRA. If those positions get filled by anti-passenger rail and anti-transit advocates, they could make for a challenging 4 years for Amtrak and the major city transit agencies.


----------



## afigg

We are getting a clue in the fate of the Trump's Administration budget slashing proposals in the FY2017 appropriations. The federal government has been running on continuing resolutions since the start of October. The Hill reports that a budget agreement has been reached in Congress, so the FY2017 appropriations may be passed in the next few days. Yes, seven months into the fiscal year with only 5 months left. It may be stupid, but that is what our political process has come to.

The Hill: Congress has deal to fund government through September

Besides the Amtrak capital and operational funding levels, I have not seen any recent reports on how much funding, if any, the TIGER grant program will get going forward. Even if the TIGER program survives, the guidelines may be revised to favor road and highway projects over transit, commuter & intercity passenger rail, and local pedestrian and bike trail projects. Even if the TIGER grant guidelines are left mostly unchanged, the political appointees in the US DOT will weigh in on the decisions on which project applications get funding.


----------



## Lonestar648

Is anyone in Congress really wanting to discuss the Budget? Neither side wants to discuss a budget, thus the continuation of the continuing resolutions to avoid a nasty fight, a and everyone (Congress) can party together after hours. Next year at this time the House will be worrying about re-election, so anything budget will be postponed until after the 2018 election.


----------



## afigg

An early report from the Washington Post on what is in the FY2017 omnibus appropriations agreement:



> AMTRAK:
> 
> The nation’s passenger rail service, a quasi-government organization, gets $1.5 billion, a $105 million increase from the last budget year.


From another news report that didn't get specific, I suspect that much of the $105 million in additional funding is for the NEC. Regardless, the takeaway is that the big funding cut proposal is not getting any traction for the current fiscal year. Anyway, the news and public interest organizations will be spending days, if not weeks, figuring out all the pieces that are in the 1600 page $1 trillion plus appropriations bill.


----------



## jis

Lonestar648 said:


> Is anyone in Congress really wanting to discuss the Budget? Neither side wants to discuss a budget, thus the continuation of the continuing resolutions to avoid a nasty fight, a and everyone (Congress) can party together after hours. Next year at this time the House will be worrying about re-election, so anything budget will be postponed until after the 2018 election.


There have been significant discussions going on about the 2018 budget in addition to the 2017 CR. Nobody expected 2017 to be anything but a CR anyway, since it really is not a full appropriation, but a filler. Trump tried to tack on all sorts of additional stuff and was mostly beaten off.

2018 involves substantive discussions since Congress has to put a budget together as there is no one there that pays much attention to Trump's proposals as far as I can tell. It should be interesting to see how things go after the appropriation passes this week. From NARP our goal is to get the full appropriation in line with the FAST Act Authorization. We have generally heard that full appropriation will be difficult, but also an appropriation significantly less than 2017 levels is unlikely. But we'll see. As usual the Senate is more sympathetic than the House, but even the House will probably not be proposing significantly less than 2017 levels.


----------



## afigg

Found a link to a House committee webpage with what is supposed to the final appropriations bill. Excerpts from Division K PDF (warning nuts and bolts details):



> NORTHEAST CORRIDOR GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
> The agreement provides $328,000,000 to allow the Secretary to make grants for activities associated with the Northeast Corridor (NEC), defined as the main line between Boston, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and the facilities and services used to operate and maintain the line. In addition, the agreement directs all operating profits related to the NEC to be assigned and used on the NEC, as required by section 24317©(l)© of title 49, United States Code. Amtrak projects a fiscal year 2017 net operating profit of $397,400,000 on the NEC, yielding a total funding level of $725,400,000 for the NEC.
> 
> The agreement allows Amtrak to undertake new capital projects and encourages Amtrak to prioritize strategic rail infrastructure improvements at critical points in the rail network that would improve current services or create new capacity.
> 
> The agreement allows Amtrak to transfer funding between the NEC and the National Network consistent with requirements under section 24317(f) and (g) of title 49, United States Code and requires Amtrak to report the amount of any transfer, the purpose, and effect on services consistent with section 24317(g)(2) of title 49, United States Code.
> 
> The agreement allows the Secretary to retain up to one-half of one percent of the total provided to Amtrak for project management and oversight costs and requires not less than $50,000,000 to bring Amtrak-served facilities and stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also allows up to $5,000,000 of the Northeast Corridor Grants to fund the Northeast Corridor Commission expenses.





> NATIONAL NETWORK GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
> 
> The agreement provides $1,167,000,000 to allow the Secretary to make grants for activities associated with the National Network. National Network Grants provide operating and capital funding for expenses of Amtrak's entire network, including long-distance routes that operate on the NEC. The agreement also provides that the Secretary may retain up to an additional $2,000,000 to fund expenses associated with the state supported route committee.



Other stuff:



> The agreement directs Amtrak and FRA to submit a detailed congressional budget justification consistent with the structure authorized in P.L. 114-94, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year 2018. The agreement also directs FRA to coordinate with Amtrak to complete the feasibility study on establishing service at airports that are adjacent to the mainline of the Northeast Corridor no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, and directs Amtrak to provide a report no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act comparing actual food and beverage savings for fiscal year 2016 with projections.



TIGER grant program survives for FY2017.



> The agreement provides $500,000,000 for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure, commonly known as the "TIGER" program, to remain available until September 30, 2020. The agreement does not include funding for planning or design Activities.


----------



## Carolina Special

Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.

Assuming this happens on time, you can probably prepare to start hollering at your local congress person by Tuesday evening.


----------



## Palmetto

And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Carolina Special said:


> Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.


Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...



> After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:
> 
> —Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans
> 
> —Flatlines funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor at $235 million, $280 million below FAST Act authorized levels. With tens of billions in critical capital investment needed urgently on the Northeast Corridor, stagnant funding levels will shut the door on a number of urgent projects to improve reliability on the corridor.
> 
> —Funds FAST Act rail grant programs at $51 million, $375 million below the levels authorized for FY2018 in the FAST Act. The budget focuses token funds on the programs targeted at large metropolitan areas, ignoring restoration programs pushed by Senators representing rural areas.
> 
> —Slashes $499 million from the TIGER grant program, zeroing out the highly successful program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national significance;
> 
> —Cuts $928 million from the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.
> 
> —Even the oft-touted infrastructure investment package falls short. Not only will the investment be spread out over 10 years, the $200 billion in proposed infrastructure spending (not the $1 trillion promised in the campaign) is secured through an accounting gimmick, and will be offset by $95 billion in assumed Highway Trust Fund cuts after 2020.





Palmetto said:


> And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.


I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...
> 
> 
> 
> After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:
> 
> —Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans
> 
> —Flatlines funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor at $235 million, $280 million below FAST Act authorized levels. With tens of billions in critical capital investment needed urgently on the Northeast Corridor, stagnant funding levels will shut the door on a number of urgent projects to improve reliability on the corridor.
> 
> —Funds FAST Act rail grant programs at $51 million, $375 million below the levels authorized for FY2018 in the FAST Act. The budget focuses token funds on the programs targeted at large metropolitan areas, ignoring restoration programs pushed by Senators representing rural areas.
> 
> —Slashes $499 million from the TIGER grant program, zeroing out the highly successful program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national significance;
> 
> —Cuts $928 million from the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.
> 
> —Even the oft-touted infrastructure investment package falls short. Not only will the investment be spread out over 10 years, the $200 billion in proposed infrastructure spending (not the $1 trillion promised in the campaign) is secured through an accounting gimmick, and will be offset by $95 billion in assumed Highway Trust Fund cuts after 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.
Click to expand...

McConnell and Ryan might not have said that per se, but many Republicans sure have. The national network still enjoys broad support in Congress.


----------



## A Voice

Devil's Advocate said:


> Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...
> 
> 
> 
> After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:
> 
> —Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans
Click to expand...

The fact that the proposed budget from the administration, still likely heavily influenced by groups such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed any money for the long-distance services is both very revealing and potentially encouraging. President Trump is not starting from a position of complete elimination of national network services, as have several previous (conservative) administrations. If Congress and the (inexperienced) Trump team would manage to get their act together, they might actually be able to work together to accomplish something towards a reasoned national transportation policy in the next four or eight years.

I am disappointed that NARP would paint this in a _completely_ negative light, however. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of passenger rail, but it is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The budget proposal has far, far bigger issues than what it would do for rail and transit (and, of course, those numbers will change).



bretton88 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> McConnell and Ryan might not have said that per se, but many Republicans sure have. The national network still enjoys broad support in Congress.
Click to expand...

Where it always has, and where the real decisions (and budget numbers) will be made. I know some people want to believe Amtrak is in mortal danger, and while in politics probably nothing is ever completely off the table, passenger rail still enjoys widespread support in Congress and among the populace.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

So the game plan should be to campaign for the full (roughly) $1.1 billion (or more if you can get it) allocation to LD services as opposed to the cut to $525 million.

But if it $525 million, there is no reason financially Amtrak has to or should cut all LD service. Even the most costly train according to the FY 2016 report, the Southwest Chief (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/188/327/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Final-Audited,0.pdf ) costs $115 million. So you now see why I don't want to say "all or nothing". IF (big if) we can only get the $525 million, hopefully we can make the most of that $525 million and be happy the $525M isn't zero rather than shut down the entire Amtrak LD system. This is Plan B, Plan A is to get the $1.1 billion back (actually $1.0333B in the report). But we need to at least prepare for Plan B rather than just have ALL of the LD trains disappear. Unless we get the full subsidy required, we need (either by our words or by our wallets in the form of ridership/revenue) to tell Amtrak/Congress which are the ones we want to keep (not me, we). We let them decide and look what happens.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So the game plan should be to campaign for the full (roughly) $1.1 billion (or more if you can get it) allocation to LD services as opposed to the cut to $525 million.
> 
> But if it $525 million, there is no reason financially Amtrak has to or should cut all LD service. Even the most costly train according to the FY 2016 report, the Southwest Chief (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/188/327/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Final-Audited,0.pdf ) costs $115 million. So you now see why I don't want to say "all or nothing". IF (big if) we can only get the $525 million, hopefully we can make the most of that $525 million and be happy the $525M isn't zero rather than shut down the entire Amtrak LD system. This is Plan B, Plan A is to get the $1.1 billion back (actually $1.0333B in the report). But we need to at least prepare for Plan B rather than just have ALL of the LD trains disappear. Unless we get the full subsidy required, we need (either by our words or by our wallets in the form of ridership/revenue) to tell Amtrak/Congress which are the ones we want to keep (not me, we). We let them decide and look what happens.


No. The very *worst* thing we could possibly do at this point is to tell Congress that certain trains should be eliminated - even if we could make an objective argument that it was for the overall good to save most other services. Rather, express _support_ for passenger rail in general and specifically those trains which serve your region (and that your representatives will primarily care about).

Further, with the horse trading and political maneuvering necessary to pass a budget, combined with the smoke & mirrors accounting of passenger train operating expenses (versus capital expenses), it is not necessarily accurate that a $525 million national network budget number would mean the end of *any* routes or services nationwide - corridor, regional, or even _long-distance_. The _total_ Amtrak FY2018 appropriation is much more important (and possibly any attached legislative mandates). A total budget in the ballpark of previous years' numbers likely means business as usual (which is a _huge_ problem going forward given Northeast Corridor infrastructure requirements, but I digress).


----------



## jis

One has to be a total idiot to tell Congress to eliminate a specific train IMHO. Asking to fund a specific project makes sense though there are not reasonable means of doing that these days apparently. So the most reasonable thing to do is to get the funding level upto the best level one can. One goal should be to also try to minimize legislative mandates because that is how Congress does the dreaded micromanagement.

Incidentally the separation between Capital and Expense has been quietly buried. Now it is just $X for NEC and $Y for National Network (which includes LD and State Supported Corridors). Those are the two main accounts other than of course mandatory things like RR Retirement Contribution, OIG etc.And then there are the few additional lines that NARP talks about that have relevance to Amtrak. And then there is the FTA appropriation which also has significant impact on NEC infrastructure, since a bunch of it is funded through transit agencies, including most likely the Portal North Bridge, and possibly significant portions of other Gateway related projects.


----------



## Lonestar648

The negotiations need to start above what is wanted knowing it will be reduced. If the negotiations start with eliminating some LD routes then for sure those will be gone, if not more. Almost need to negotiate from the stand point, all or nothing. Does Congress want the grid lock of a complete shut down? No.


----------



## Acela150

The FY 18 budget was released today.. And as soon as it came out many GOP members were quoted as saying that "It's going no where" and that's it's instantly "DOA".


----------



## RPC

Per Lonestar above, Trump's own "Art of the Deal" says to open with way more than you expect to achieve, as that gives you plenty of wiggle room in the negotiations. So, unrealistic as it might be, I'd open with fully funded Gateway, daily Cardinal and SL, and restored Chicago-Pittsburgh-New York service.


----------



## jis

The budget process typically would not involve discussion of individual trains, except those that are on the political radar already, like the Gulf Coast service.

Gateway is on the radar screen big time so it will get attention specially since the DoT Secretary has also been on record stating so.

A good starting position would to ask for full FAST authorized funding and funding for Gateway consistent with the full funding of 50% of its projected cost over ten years prorated annually. Full FAST funding levels will actually give enough wiggle room for many of the individual trains and services and even funds for some rolling stock acquisition with leveraged loans.

Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.


----------



## A Voice

> After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:
> 
> —Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans


Did NARP edit the news copy posted above (not negative enough the first time or something)? It now reads as below (where do they get $525 million in national network costs which *don't* include the long-distance services?). Something doesn't add up here.

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. This budget provides $525 million for the National Network, but targets all funding to the state supported services and other costs, calling for an end to all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes.

Realistically, however, the proposal would likely shut down the entire National Network, state-supported trains and all. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak is already running the national rail system on a threadbare budget. Gutting half of the National Network funding will likely result in a slow-motion collapse of the entire network.



RPC said:


> Per Lonestar above, Trump's own "Art of the Deal" says to open with way more than you expect to achieve, as that gives you plenty of wiggle room in the negotiations. So, unrealistic as it might be, I'd open with fully funded Gateway, daily Cardinal and SL, and restored Chicago-Pittsburgh-New York service.


Honestly, the FY2018 budget needs to include only realistic service expansions with serious, concrete, and politically supported proposals which are legitimately close to fruition; Specifically the City of New Orleans extension and _possibly_ the Crescent Star, _maybe_ a daily Cardinal. Too long a wish list is arguably counterproductive.

Through cars on the Pennsylvanian seems so obvious, once Amtrak has the equipment, I wonder just how much political capital we need spend fighting for such a minor (though important) alteration. Gateway involves more parties than just Amtrak and should be an obvious candidate for infrastructure investment if (big IF) Congress can stop playing politics and the Trump administration gain some experience in how to get things done in Washington.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.


He makes a legitimate point, but the more I think about it the more convinced I am that such a strategy is mistaken and actually works against the cause of passenger rail. We'll never get anywhere just maintaining the status quo, and expanded and improved service - or even just existing service in a state of good repair - takes money, significantly more than what has been budgeted in the past. Better to be a political target than just sit back and watch the network's slow decline into obsolescence and irrelevance (which would also make it a target politically). Passenger rail is a political animal; There's no getting around that.


----------



## jis

Yeah. But the point still remains that as long as he is the Chair of Appropriations, the budget that comes out of his committee which is what goes to the full House will probably follow the principle elucidated by his chief legislative aid, or something close to it. Tactically, this indicates to me that the actual battle if fought in the Senate has a better chance of being more productive for us rail advocates. We spoke with the Committee Staff for transportation on both sides of the aisle on the Senate side, thanks to Senator Nelson and Senator Thune, and both sides were way more supportive there to our cause than the House Appropriations Chair's staff.

Just an observation, so please don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Spot on jis! Its amazing how so many Americans don't know how the System actually works in Sodom on the Potomac!


----------



## dlagrua

I see no cause for being upset just yet. The White House only proposes and in the case of the 2018 federal budget it looks like the arch conservatives got their way at that end. However, the budget and appropriations are set by the congress. I doubt if passenger rail will disappear. It would be political suicide if LD Amtrak service was eliminated, and congress knows it!


----------



## west point

Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.

The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> The budget process typically would not involve discussion of individual trains, except those that are on the political radar already, like the Gulf Coast service.
> 
> Gateway is on the radar screen big time so it will get attention specially since the DoT Secretary has also been on record stating so.
> 
> A good starting position would to ask for full FAST authorized funding and funding for Gateway consistent with the full funding of 50% of its projected cost over ten years prorated annually. Full FAST funding levels will actually give enough wiggle room for many of the individual trains and services and even funds for some rolling stock acquisition with leveraged loans.
> 
> Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.


Yeah, this shows his ignorance (not that I'm surprised that an aide is ignorant about the economics of this). Getting a huge amount now and having adverse treatment the next year is actually preferable to the status quo -- provided the "huge amount" is spent on buying new rolling stock (particularly single-level sleepers and locomotives), speeding up trips by buying or improving tracks, etc. -- because appropriate capital improvements increase revenue and reduce operating costs, meaning that less money will actually be *needed* in the future.

Little noticed is that Amtrak is paying off the Penn Station Mortgage next month, which is a $28.5 million per year improvement in the annual budget. I expect the net loss (not the cash flow and not the operating loss -- the net loss, which includes depreciation) to be below a billion dollars for 2017, a record low.

Amtrak has to stop doing penny-wise pound-foolish things like the disruption to Auto Train service quality which has led to a crash in ridership. And its passenger car suppliers have to actually make and deliver cars on time. But if Amtrak can avoid that kind of incompetence, having a large lump sum next year and less the year after is actually a *good* situation for Amtrak.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.
> 
> The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.


Let me repeat one more time so that people understand.... The budget at the level it is being discussed does not break out individual items. There are two grossed up amounts - one for NEC ($235 million of which $6 million is specifically allocated for the NEC Commission and management oversight), and the other for the National Network ($525 million). As for how that is sliced and diced into individual expense items, after NEC surpluses are added to the NEC account, and how Amtrak chooses to reallocate from one account to another, if any, comes later. So at this level, to talk about "must provide funds for" V2s or Superliners or whatever, is something that can be addressed only after we see Amtrak's proposed budget coming from Amtrak.

The President's proposed budget details for DoT has the following specific sentence in it (Page 885 - DoT Appendix):



> The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget proposes to terminate Federal funding for Amtrak's Long Distance services.


So, the President actually specifically states that LD trains are not funded in the National Account. NARP's statement is correct. The entire $525 million is restricted for spending on State Supported Corridors and is not to be spent on LD trains.

As for NARP's statement:



> *—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, *$560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. This budget provides $525 million for the National Network, but targets all funding to the state supported services and other costs, calling for an end to all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes.


The $630 million is the difference between the final FY17 amount and the proposed FY18 amount for the National Network account. The $525 million proposed for FY18 is $560 million below the FAST Act Authorization for FY18. And I have quoted the exact text from the budget proposal regarding the last bit in the quote above from NARP.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.
> 
> The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.


Ugh. Rather than P-42 rebuilds, please get us some long-distance Chargers.

The diesel emissions alone.... the P-42s are subject to "Tier 1" or in some cases "Tier 0" standards. Any new locomotive, such as the Chargers, is subject to Tier 4 standards. It's not really clear to me how the very complex grandfathering provisions work -- it looks like upgrades would be required during a significant rebuild -- but even if rebuilds are allowed to continue spewing pollution, it's not really a good *idea*. Using modern, lower-emissions locomotives will definitely be more popular with *everyone* -- it may indeed mean more votes for Amtrak.


----------



## jis

BTW here is the place where you can find the details of the proposed DoT budget - specially for those that are suffering from OCD or something like that  Mind you I would probably be a candidate myself since I have at least skimmed through the entire thing once.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/dot.pdf



neroden said:


> Amtrak has to stop doing penny-wise pound-foolish things like the disruption to Auto Train service quality which has led to a crash in ridership. And its passenger car suppliers have to actually make and deliver cars on time. But if Amtrak can avoid that kind of incompetence, having a large lump sum next year and less the year after is actually a *good* situation for Amtrak.


Yup. But most unfortunately a large lump sum in FY18 is highly unlikely since there are much bigger fish getting their fins and tails (and sometimes even heads) lopped off on the non-defense discretionary side. Amtrak is reeeeaally a rather small fry.

We should consider ourselves in incredibly good shape if the unlikely eventuality of getting full FAST appropriation comes to pass.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> BTW here is the place where you can find the details of the proposed DoT budget - specially for those that are suffering from OCD or something like that  Mind you I would probably be a candidate myself since I have at least skimmed through the entire thing once.
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/dot.pdf


Thanks for the link. The specific clause about funding for long-distance services is troubling, but of course that is a very minor point to address in the coming budget discussions; Much more important is the total budget numbers for Amtrak, which is what will preserve the system or actually allow future progress. NARP's erroneous or misleading statements can probably be explained simply by the fact they are just now uncovering the facts themselves, but when people will (over) analyze every word of your statement you need to be accurate.

I'd still like to know what someone thinks is included in the $525 million for state supported routes. There are costs borne by Amtrak in operating state supported services, but absent any long-distance service it doesn't equal half a billion (of course, there are greater overhead and other costs than the proposed Northeast corridor budget). In fairness, however, as you note we are still talking in generalities and it is almost certain the budget authors themselves do not fully comprehend the implications of the numbers they have proposed. A total of the national network and Northeast Corridor figures is an unworkable budget for Amtrak regardless.


----------



## west point

neroden said:


> Ugh. Rather than P-42 rebuilds, please get us some long-distance Chargers.
> 
> Using modern, lower-emissions locomotives will definitely be more popular with *everyone* -- it may indeed mean more votes for Amtrak.


We rather agree but just using Moorman's statement that he is considering a 10 year program for rebuilding. The biggest problem we see is not rebuilding to AC traction. Now if Moorman can get NS to rebuild P-42s to AC ?? Believe Moorman is just looking at economics of rebuilding instead of new LD Chargers.


----------



## A Voice

neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.
> 
> The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh. Rather than P-42 rebuilds, please get us some long-distance Chargers.
> 
> The diesel emissions alone.... the P-42s are subject to "Tier 1" or in some cases "Tier 0" standards. Any new locomotive, such as the Chargers, is subject to Tier 4 standards. It's not really clear to me how the very complex grandfathering provisions work -- it looks like upgrades would be required during a significant rebuild -- but even if rebuilds are allowed to continue spewing pollution, it's not really a good *idea*. Using modern, lower-emissions locomotives will definitely be more popular with *everyone* -- it may indeed mean more votes for Amtrak.
Click to expand...

It is really off topic for a Congressional budget discussion (such decisions are internal to Amtrak), but Amtrak has about 204 P-42 locomotives (I believe three are off-roster?) available for rebuilding (plus some F-59 and P-40 units). This is a very, very tiny number - so tiny as to be insignificant - of the tens of thousands of freight units around the country. Amtrak could maintain them so poorly them smoke like an Alco and it really wouldn't make a bit of difference in the larger scheme of things.

Both the EMD F-125 and Siemens Charger are new, expensive, and require the use of urea, which a rebuilt P-42 would not. I'd really rather see Amtrak wait a few years and see what experience Metrolink and the Midwest states have with their respective locomotives before ordering new units.


----------



## jis

A Voice said:


> NARP's erroneous or misleading statements can probably be explained simply by the fact they are just now uncovering the facts themselves, but when people will (over) analyze every word of your statement you need to be accurate.


Since I do not see any error in NARP's statement I am afraid you will need to explain what is erroneous in it, to my dumbness perhaps. In my reading of it, they are completely accurate.It would have been even clearer if they had included the FAST authorization number for FY18, and the actual appropriation for FY17.


----------



## Acela150

dlagrua said:


> I see no cause for being upset just yet. The White House only proposes and in the case of the 2018 federal budget it looks like the arch conservatives got their way at that end. However, the budget and appropriations are set by the congress. I doubt if passenger rail will disappear. It would be political suicide if LD Amtrak service was eliminated, and congress knows it!


Dennis, You clearly missed my post from yesterday.. Many GOP members are quoted as saying that our redheaded troll's budget won't go anywhere but the garbage can.



neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.
> 
> The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh. Rather than P-42 rebuilds, please get us some long-distance Chargers.
> 
> The diesel emissions alone.... the P-42s are subject to "Tier 1" or in some cases "Tier 0" standards. Any new locomotive, such as the Chargers, is subject to Tier 4 standards. It's not really clear to me how the very complex grandfathering provisions work -- it looks like upgrades would be required during a significant rebuild -- but even if rebuilds are allowed to continue spewing pollution, it's not really a good *idea*. Using modern, lower-emissions locomotives will definitely be more popular with *everyone* -- it may indeed mean more votes for Amtrak.
Click to expand...

While I like Wick. This is one place where he is going wrong and extremely wrong at that. While as head of NS at least 2 major rebuild programs started and one of them was completed and that one has been the most successful. Their was the SD40E program. Which took SD50's and completely rebuilt them to the SD40E, which is by far the best rebuild NS has. I had a 40E on more then one occasion and they were a great unit. Mostly cause their aren't a lot of computers in them. Still in progress is the SD60E program. Which is rebuilding Standard Cab SD60's with new cabs, and much more. The only good thing outside of the heating and A/C on them is the Dynamic braking. Which will turn crappy over a few years of use. My main problem with the 60E's is that to have a conversation with you Engineer or Conductor you almost have to yell across the cab. They are very loud.

The P42's are not good candidates for rebuild as it would take years to rebuild all of them. As of now according to OTOL their are 193 active P42's with several stored. The rebuild process would take to long and the failure rate would skyrocket. I could also see several units completely dying off completely. And by that point in time it would be way to late to order new units and have them built, tested, and accepted for service.

The problem here is that Wick doesn't fully understand the power shortage that Amtrak has in the Diesel fleet and is still thinking with a Freight RR mentality here and there.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I don't know why people think defunding Amtrak would be political suicide for the defunding parties, given that as far as I can tell those parties are in areas where less than half the people are even aware of Amtrak's existence beyond occasional ranting about its wastefulness.

Amtrak's political value is as a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> We rather agree but just using Moorman's statement that he is considering a 10 year program for rebuilding. The biggest problem we see is not rebuilding to AC traction. Now if Moorman can get NS to rebuild P-42s to AC ?? Believe Moorman is just looking at economics of rebuilding instead of new LD Chargers.


The economics of rebuilding is nasty because if they change enough parts they probably qualify as "remanufactured" and have to be upgraded to Tier 4 emissions standards. (I may have forgotten to mention this aspect earlier, but it mitigates strongly *against* rebuilding.) It is easier to buy a locomotive which already complies than to retrofit an over-30-year-old design.

Amtrak should get at least some of the Siemens options. They exist, they're being accepted, they work. They'll allow more of the old P-42s to be turned into spare parts collections to keep the remaining ones running *without* having to upgrade them to current code.

(If the mods are bored maybe we can split this off into a separate discussion... I hadn't heard of the idiotic idea of repowering P-42s before. It would be an extremely stupid thing to do, having to design a new Tier 4 compliant system from scratch and stuff it into the P-42 body, when they could buy off the shelf from Siemens or EMD.)


----------



## jis

Some folks have the motto: "Never do the simple cost effective thing when you can figure out an expensive Rube Goldberg scheme to achieve less"


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Isn't that the corporate mission statement of NJTransit?


----------



## John Bredin

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't know why people think defunding Amtrak would be political suicide for the defunding parties, given that as far as I can tell those parties are in areas where less than half the people are even aware of Amtrak's existence beyond occasional ranting about its wastefulness.
> 
> Amtrak's political value is as a tempest in a teapot.


Eppur si muove. 

"Political suicide" is overly optimistic, of course, but *somebody* in Congress had to expend *some* level of political capital for Amtrak to have survived various budget proposals over the years to slash or zero out its federal funding.


----------



## A Voice

neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> We rather agree but just using Moorman's statement that he is considering a 10 year program for rebuilding. The biggest problem we see is not rebuilding to AC traction. Now if Moorman can get NS to rebuild P-42s to AC ?? Believe Moorman is just looking at economics of rebuilding instead of new LD Chargers.
> 
> 
> 
> The economics of rebuilding is nasty because if they change enough parts they probably qualify as "remanufactured" and have to be upgraded to Tier 4 emissions standards. (I may have forgotten to mention this aspect earlier, but it mitigates strongly *against* rebuilding.) It is easier to buy a locomotive which already complies than to retrofit an over-30-year-old design.
> 
> Amtrak should get at least some of the Siemens options. They exist, they're being accepted, they work. They'll allow more of the old P-42s to be turned into spare parts collections to keep the remaining ones running *without* having to upgrade them to current code.
> 
> (If the mods are bored maybe we can split this off into a separate discussion... I hadn't heard of the idiotic idea of repowering P-42s before. It would be an extremely stupid thing to do, having to design a new Tier 4 compliant system from scratch and stuff it into the P-42 body, when they could buy off the shelf from Siemens or EMD.)
Click to expand...

I'd second (or third) the motion to branch this discussion off into its own thread. Whether you think locomotive rebuilds are a good idea or the worst thing ever, it is still an interesting discussion (especially as Amtrak has apparently at least considered this).

Are you certain that remanufactured (or even repowered) locomotives have to meet current (tier-4) emissions standards? That wasn't my understanding, though I could very easily be wrong and welcome corrections. The initial sources I just checked, below, seem to indicate that Amtrak's P-42 locomotives - all built 2001 or earlier - would only need to meet tier 1 standards.

Tier 0-2 standards apply to existing locomotives of the indicated manufacture years (MY) at the time they are remanufactured, beginning from the effective date. Tier 3-4 standards apply to locomotives of the indicated manufacture years at the time they are newly built or remanufactured.

Table 3

Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Standards, g/bhp·hr Tier MY Date HC CO NOx PM Tier 0a 1973-1992c 2010d 1.00 5.0 8.0 0.22 Tier 1a 1993c-2004 2010d 0.55 2.2 7.4 0.22 Tier 2a 2005-2011 2010d 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10e Tier 3b 2012-2014 2012 0.30 1.5 5.5 0.10 Tier 4 2015 or later 2015 0.14f 1.5 1.3f 0.03

Source: https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php



jis said:


> Some folks have the motto: "Never do the simple cost effective thing when you can figure out an expensive Rube Goldberg scheme to achieve less"


Sometimes the rebuild option *is* the simpler and most cost effective solution. Not every rebuild project is overly complicated and produces inferior results. Railroad history is in fact littered with design and engineering failures for both new (HHP-8, SDP-40F) and rebuilt power (Sulzer repowered SD-45's). But there have also been remarkably successful rebuild programs (AEM-7AC, CF-7).

Whichever form a potential P-42 rebuilt might take remains to be seen. I am not necessarily saying that remanufacture is the way to go for Amtrak (you'd still need new power within the next decade, at most), but recall that this was also suggested for the (even older) electric fleet, prior to the ACS-64 contract. While it is just speculation, I would have expected Amtrak to pursue an engine solution which does not require exhaust aftertreatment, as the freight roads have done. Just thinking out loud, but I don't suppose there is any way to shoehorn a 1010 prime mover into the F-125 carbody? :unsure:



Green Maned Lion said:


> Isn't that the corporate mission statement of NJTransit?


It is for many corporations and industries. For government you need a new word.


----------



## jis

Yeah. People still want to rebuild the GG-1 if not the DD-1


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Yeah. People still want to rebuild the GG-1 if not the DD-1


Hey, if only MILW hadn't scrapped the box cab electrics, Brightline could have been electrified.....


----------



## Rover

So far the administration has offered few details on its infrastructure proposals, aside from a six-page fact sheet it slipped into its 2018 budget proposal last month.

President Donald Trump will kick off the week Monday in the Oval Office by rolling out legislative principles encouraging Congress to split air traffic control away from the Federal Aviation Administration and place it under a private, non-governmental entity – a controversial idea that has run into flak from lawmakers of both parties and sectors of the aviation industry itself.

On Wednesday, he'll travel to Ohio and Kentucky for a speech that touches on waterways and rural America, followed by a Thursday meeting in the White House with mayors and governors and a Friday address at the Department of Transportation.

In outlining its FAA principles, the administration will also propose changes in the way it pays for much of the national aviation system, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said

The White House will host a bipartisan group of governors and mayors to talk about infrastructure on Thursday, and on Friday, June 9th Trump will give a speech at DOT on overhauling regulations around roads *and rail*, with a focus on changes to the permitting process for those projects.

“Time is money," Cohn said. "The cost of infrastructure goes up dramatically as time goes on in the approval process."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/03/trump-infrastructure-239098


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

Welp, Donald Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project and many other upgrades for the Northeast Corridor! What is the matter with him?!


----------



## A Voice

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Welp, Donald Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project and many other upgrades for the Northeast Corridor! What is the matter with him?!


Source please? Because the President doesn't have that authority, and his proposed budget was DOA in Congress.

A quick check of the day's news revealed this article ($900 million slated for Gateway, if approved):

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/07/11/house-preparing-reject-trump-cuts-amtrak/467350001/


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

A Voice said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp, Donald Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project and many other upgrades for the Northeast Corridor! What is the matter with him?!
> 
> 
> 
> Source please? Because the President doesn't have that authority, and his proposed budget was DOA in Congress.
> 
> A quick check of the day's news revealed this article ($900 million slated for Gateway, if approved):
> 
> http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/07/11/house-preparing-reject-trump-cuts-amtrak/467350001/
Click to expand...

Here you are.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/trump-dot-quits-24b-n-y-transportation-project-article-1.3298435


----------



## A Voice

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp, Donald Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project and many other upgrades for the Northeast Corridor! What is the matter with him?!
> 
> 
> 
> Source please? Because the President doesn't have that authority, and his proposed budget was DOA in Congress.
> 
> A quick check of the day's news revealed this article ($900 million slated for Gateway, if approved):
> 
> http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/07/11/house-preparing-reject-trump-cuts-amtrak/467350001/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here you are.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/trump-dot-quits-24b-n-y-transportation-project-article-1.3298435
Click to expand...

The DOT has withdrawn from the corporation overseeing the Gateway project; That doesn't mean that funding has been eliminated (nor yet approved). Granted, the Trump administration is not seeking to endorse many agreements and obligations made by his predecessor, and there is no doubt *much* political horse trading yet to come, but it is simply not true that "Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project"

From: http://www.amny.com/transit/united-states-department-of-transportation-withdraws-from-overseeing-hudson-river-tunnel-portal-bridge-projects-1.13780303



> A DOT spokesman elaborated in a statement that the federal agency decided to leave the corporation “as a procedural matter to avoid potential conflicts” and to ensure “there is no appearance of prejudice or partiality in favor of these projects ahead of hundreds of other projects nationwide.” It is not indicative of the federal government’s support of the project, the spokesman said.
> 
> “The decision to resign from the Board should not be misinterpreted as any form of decision about the multiple individual projects promoted by the Gateway Development Corporation,” the DOT spokesman said.


----------



## Rover

_The DOT has withdrawn from the corporation overseeing the Gateway project; That doesn't mean that funding has been eliminated (nor yet approved). Granted, the Trump administration is not seeking to endorse many agreements and obligations made by his predecessor, and there is no doubt *much* political horse trading yet to come, but it is simply not true that "Trump has now cut the funds for the Gateway Project" _

Yes, Much.


----------



## DSS&A

For a short time in the 1990s, the Federal Government allocated transit agencies to do a lease-lease back financial arrangement to lease their long term new equipment (passenger cars) to there organizations who paid BIG money to utilize the depreciation tax write-off. The Feds stopped it because they started loosing too much tax revenue.

A new version of this lease-lease back law could be enacted to help finance around 50-65 percent of new passenger cars and still not have the Feds "loose too much tax revenue". Amtrak could then use other financing to pay for the remaining costs. Bridges also have a long enough lifespan and a large enough cost for a lease-lease back depreciation write-off.

This type of financial arrangement would probably be received well by the current administration because it would get private capital funds to pay for new infrastructure.


----------



## Rover

DSS&A said:


> For a short time in the 1990s, the Federal Government allocated transit agencies to do a lease-lease back financial arrangement to lease their long term new equipment (passenger cars) to there organizations who paid BIG money to utilize the depreciation tax write-off. The Feds stopped it because they started loosing too much tax revenue.
> 
> A new version of this lease-lease back law could be enacted to help finance around 50-65 percent of new passenger cars and still not have the Feds "loose too much tax revenue". *Amtrak could then use other financing to pay for the remaining costs. *Bridges also have a long enough lifespan and a large enough cost for a lease-lease back depreciation write-off.
> 
> This type of financial arrangement would probably be received well by the current administration because it would get private capital funds to pay for new infrastructure.


Like this??


----------



## Rover

*End of the Empire? Amtrak's 15 long-distance rail lines face elimination*

http://lacrossetribune.com/tomahjournal/news/local/end-of-the-empire-amtrak-s-long-distance-rail-lines/article_6687fc2f-e612-58a0-9ed8-afb8bd280a8a.html



> President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would reduce Amtrak’s funding from $1.5 billion to $760 million, part of a larger package of cuts that trims $2.4 billion from federal transportation in all. That would end all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes — 15 of them — including the Empire Builder, which stretches 2,200 miles from Chicago to Seattle with Wisconsin stops in Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah and La Crosse.




It's a long article, so go and read it for yourself...

Moderator Note: edited to reduce content of quote to comply with copyright rules.


----------



## TinCan782

Rover said:


> *End of the Empire? Amtrak's 15 long-distance rail lines face elimination*
> 
> http://lacrossetribune.com/tomahjournal/news/local/end-of-the-empire-amtrak-s-long-distance-rail-lines/article_6687fc2f-e612-58a0-9ed8-afb8bd280a8a.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would reduce Amtrak’s funding from $1.5 billion to $760 million, part of a larger package of cuts that trims $2.4 billion from federal transportation in all. That would end all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes — 15 of them — including the Empire Builder, which stretches 2,200 miles from Chicago to Seattle with Wisconsin stops in Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah and La Crosse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long article, so go and read it for yourself...
> 
> Moderator Note: edited to reduce content of quote to comply with copyright rules.
Click to expand...

Re-hash (to make local) of not-so-recent news.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Rover said:


> Like this??


An interesting possible direction for Amtrak's café cars.


----------



## TinCan782

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like this??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting possible direction for Amtrak's café cars.
Click to expand...

As long as the "wrap" doesn't cover the windows and obscure the view!

Actually, this (second) round of save Amtrak long distance has been going on for what, two months now? Mid-June saw the "Rally for Trains.

We've been seeing many articles which are localized (which is fine) versions of the main story from a couple months ago. Drive the story home to rally the population!


----------



## jis

FrensicPic said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *End of the Empire? Amtrak's 15 long-distance rail lines face elimination*
> 
> http://lacrossetribune.com/tomahjournal/news/local/end-of-the-empire-amtrak-s-long-distance-rail-lines/article_6687fc2f-e612-58a0-9ed8-afb8bd280a8a.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would reduce Amtrak’s funding from $1.5 billion to $760 million, part of a larger package of cuts that trims $2.4 billion from federal transportation in all. That would end all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes — 15 of them — including the Empire Builder, which stretches 2,200 miles from Chicago to Seattle with Wisconsin stops in Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah and La Crosse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long article, so go and read it for yourself...
> 
> Moderator Note: edited to reduce content of quote to comply with copyright rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re-hash (to make local) of not-so-recent news.
Click to expand...

Yup old story being rehashed and getting stale specially now that both House and Senate appropriations folks have spoken.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *End of the Empire? Amtrak's 15 long-distance rail lines face elimination*
> 
> http://lacrossetribune.com/tomahjournal/news/local/end-of-the-empire-amtrak-s-long-distance-rail-lines/article_6687fc2f-e612-58a0-9ed8-afb8bd280a8a.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would reduce Amtrak’s funding from $1.5 billion to $760 million, part of a larger package of cuts that trims $2.4 billion from federal transportation in all. That would end all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes — 15 of them — including the Empire Builder, which stretches 2,200 miles from Chicago to Seattle with Wisconsin stops in Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah and La Crosse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a long article, so go and read it for yourself...
> 
> Moderator Note: edited to reduce content of quote to comply with copyright rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re-hash (to make local) of not-so-recent news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup old story being rehashed and getting stale specially now that both House and Senate appropriations folks have spoken.
Click to expand...

I agree; it is extremely unlikely the Empire Builder will be discontinued. However, it's still good for the story to spread so more supporters can be gained.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

How is spreading overblown debunked stories different than fear mongering?


----------



## jis

The consequences of endlessly crying wolf comes to mind.... People just tune out after a while and become desensitized, and come next time they just have a tendency to say "Meh". Be careful not to lose the trust of those that you need. Very important to be factually accurate to maintain trust.


----------



## Ryan

Precisely. We’ve already seen a fair bit of that this time around.


----------



## Poindexter118

I was relieved to see Amtrak was taken off the chopping block. I have written my senator, and said I was worried that long distance trains could be taken away. In my letter, I said we need a balanced transit system. A few weeks ago, I also wrote a letter to President Trump asking him to reconsider gutting Amtrak. I haven't heard back, but I'm assuming with thousands of people calling, writing, or Emailing, that maybe the message may have gotten through.

MODERATOR NOTE: A new topic, which was created by OP entitled "saved again," was merged into this existing thread on the same topic.


----------



## zephyr17

Well, this is a replay of something that has been happening more years than not since Amtrak started in 1971. I don't want to sound dismissive, and I, too, have made letters and calls. But Amtrak long distance service has been a target since I can remember. Bush zeroed out the budget, too, for instance. But I was far from panicked about it, and the result was actually better than I thought, so far not even major cutbacks.

The dance continues as it has for decades. Amtrak gets enough to survive, but never enough to thrive.

Silver lining: John Mica (R-FL) is gone!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I don't think any message got through to anyone. The truth is, at this moment, real problems are publically obvious, such as Harvey, Irma, and FEMA running out of funds. This they have real fights to distract the public from the hidden underlying ones like our collapsing infrastructure and unsustainably low taxes.

When those go back to being the issues of concern, the old punching bags will be dragged out again, and the teapot tempest machine will be switched on once again.


----------



## zephyr17

At least the diners don't have Mica around to punch them anymore.


----------



## neroden

In the last few days, a specific, grandstanding attempt to kill all Amtrak funding in the House was defeated 293-128. Attempts to remove Gateway funding were defeated 260-159. Essentially unanimous Democratic support for Amtrak and about 1/3 of the Republicans, with additional Republican support if it didn't mean supporting the Northeast Corridor. :sigh:

This is actually better than in previous decades when the votes were tighter.


----------

