# RSC: Federal Funding For Amtrak & HSR On Chopping Block



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 20, 2011)

First we had President George Bush and would-be president John McCain calling for the end of federal funding of Amtrak. Republican gubernatorial candidates joined the anti-rail chorus and campaigned on promises to refuse federal funds for passenger rail improvements and expansion if they couldn't be twisted and perverted into subsidies for trucks and automobiles instead. Now it looks as though the GOP-led House is not far behind on the bewildering but growing anti-rail bandwagon that is quickly developing into a fundamental platform position for the Republican party. Although there may not yet be enough Republicans in active office to completely defund Amtrak at this time the trend lines are clear. Presumably there will be some sort of reduction in a "compromise" between the House and the Senate. If the Republicans are able to regain political dominance Amtrak is likely to suffer a critical shortage of funds at their hands. I cannot predict exactly how much funding Amtrak will lose in a compromise bill or when the GOP will regain their former political clout, but I think it's safe to say it's going to happen eventually. The question that's bouncing around in my mind now is how much of Amtrak's current network can possibly survive on its own after all or most of their federal funding is finally lost?



> [The Republican Study Committee] wants to eliminate Amtrak operating subsidies ($1.565 billion), which amounted to $32 per passenger in 2009. In 2009, 41 of Amtrak's 44 routes -- which service 500 destinations in 46 states -- lost money, indicating that, without the subsidies, Amtrak would have to significantly reduce or eliminate its service outside the heavily trafficked urban coastal routes. The plans also call for the elimination of Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants to the tune of $2.5 billion a year.


*Link To Story...*


----------



## PJRACER (Jan 20, 2011)

Sounds good to me on high speed rail in FL. I can still drive the 95 miles from the west coast of FL to Mickey Mouse. NOTHING is free.....its all our tax money.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 20, 2011)

Nice to have a real rail supporter in the audience.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 20, 2011)

I notice that they list the Amtrak subsidy by the passenger. Profit or loss in passenger transportation is measured by the Revenue Passenger Mile!

/end rant :angry2: :angry2:


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jan 20, 2011)

Just to be clear, the RSC is proposing cutting the entire federal allocation for Amtrak. So Florida has more at stake than HSR. Most of the national network (if not the entire system) would be gutted under this proposal.


----------



## Kurn (Jan 20, 2011)

PJRACER said:


> Sounds good to me on high speed rail in FL. I can still drive the 95 miles from the west coast of FL to Mickey Mouse. NOTHING is free.....its all our tax money.



And you are on this forum because?


----------



## Tumbleweed (Jan 20, 2011)

What is the most effective method to contact Senators and Congressmen these days? E-mail? Their individual web page? telephone? hand-written snail mail? In-person while they are in their home state? Sounds like some grass roots voices need to be heard........and loudly!


----------



## PJRACER (Jan 20, 2011)

Kurn said:


> PJRACER said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds good to me on high speed rail in FL. I can still drive the 95 miles from the west coast of FL to Mickey Mouse. NOTHING is free.....its all our tax money.
> ...


I arrived on this forum when I became a first time AMTRAK user.....we are still planning our long distance AMTRAK experience, and I don't give a hoot about the proposed high speed Chinese owned rail between nowhere in Tampa to nowhere in Orlando. Historically, Floridians (which I am one) are in love with the automobile for their short trips especially......tourists flying into Orlando will support the "rental car agency" and drive over here to the beaches if they so desire. Not being dropped off in a "nothing" area in Tampa in search of a beach, which is another 35 miles away. If they fly into Tampa....there is no high speed rail at the airport....therefore the "rental car agency" supplys them with a car and they can turn right and go to the beach or turn left and go to Mickey Mouse.......which is really all they come for in the first place.	Everybody things that because the "fed's" are giving up the money for this rail.....who is going to sustain it.	We the tax payers. Now if you don't pay taxes (and many don't)....then you can look at it as a "so what". Enough said, time for rebuttal.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 20, 2011)

Talking Points, Talking Points. ya, ya blah blah.

I did notice ELIMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL PENSIONS somehow got left off the list. I am sure it will be added later......


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jan 20, 2011)

PJRACER said:


> Sounds good to me on high speed rail in FL. I can still drive the 95 miles from the west coast of FL to Mickey Mouse. NOTHING is free.....its all our tax money.


Enjoy your federally funded highway.

We spend 5.5 times more than the Fed's contribution to Amtrak to get our junk fondled by the TSA.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 20, 2011)

They can propose all they want, but that doesn't mean they have a prayer of getting it. I saw somewhere, and I wish I could find the site again, that listed votes for Amtrak funding by each House of Representative member. That was for the last Congress so wouldn't apply now, but as I recall, more than half of the Republicans voted to continue funding Amtrak. And even if every one of the representatives who lost were for funding Amtrak and all those who won were against it, there would still be a majority voting to fund it. And as I recall, the current makeup of the House of Representatives is 245-193 in the Republicans' favor. That would mean only 27 Republicans out of the 245 would need to vote in favor of Amtrak funding, assuming all Democrats vote for it as well. I think you will be able to find far more than 27 Republicans for it. And there's the Senate, which is still in Democratic control, and then it would have to get past President Obama.

I think Amtrak is safe. However, we still should be contacting our Senators and Representatives diligently, as I have. While I think all we are going to get in Congress for the next two years is gridlock, that doesn't mean I won't (and we shouldn't) be on our guard.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 20, 2011)

My rebuttal, *PJRACER*, is:

1) This proposal if carried to fruition* would eliminate that long-distance Amtrak experience you plan on having, not just the HSR plan you don't like.

2) Various people have claimed repeatedly throughout the years that nobody will ride trains -- until they do.  Remember that Californians (and in particular Angelenos) were supposed to be so car-crazy you'd have to pull the steering wheels from their cold dead hands. Look at the ridership on the Amtrak California corridors now.

3) Who said the Chinese would be running it? As I recall, nobody's taken bids yet for who'll build and operate Florida HSR, much less picked the winner. And if it is the Chinese, or the Japanese, or the French, it's because we Americans have thrown away our post-WWII technological advantage in railways and stood idle while the whole industrialized world passed us by, for no greater reason than morons grunting that "billions for highways good, millions for railways bad."

*Not that it will be. There are Representatives from Amtrak-served states (and from Maryland and Virginia for the proposed end of DC Metro funding) who will have something to say about it, as will the Senate. This isn't to say we shouldn't advocate against such proposals to our elected officials -- we definitely should -- just that we shouldn't get too pessimistic. The flipside of *Green Maned Lion*'s "don't rely on a proposed train until it's actually running" is my "don't rely on a zero-budget for Amtrak until it actually becomes law." Amtrak has actually managed to add trains (usually state-sponsored ones), while Congress hasn't passed a zero-budget for Amtrak yet.


----------



## LA Resident (Jan 20, 2011)

daxomni said:


> First we had President George Bush and would-be president John McCain calling for the end of federal funding of Amtrak. Republican gubernatorial candidates joined the anti-rail chorus and campaigned on promises to refuse federal funds for passenger rail improvements and expansion if they couldn't be twisted and perverted into subsidies for trucks and automobiles instead. Now it looks as though the GOP-led House is not far behind on the bewildering but growing anti-rail bandwagon that is quickly developing into a fundamental platform position for the Republican party. Although there may not yet be enough Republicans in active office to completely defund Amtrak at this time the trend lines are clear. Presumably there will be some sort of reduction in a "compromise" between the House and the Senate. If the Republicans are able to regain political dominance Amtrak is likely to suffer a critical shortage of funds at their hands. I cannot predict exactly how much funding Amtrak will lose in a compromise bill or when the GOP will regain their former political clout, but I think it's safe to say it's going to happen eventually. The question that's bouncing around in my mind now is how much of Amtrak's current network can possibly survive on its own after all or most of their federal funding is finally lost?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even more discouraging than their attempts at specific cuts is the philosophy behind it. There doesn't seem to be the most elementary of understanding that no transportation system--whether roads, air, rail, boat, etc.--exists anywhere in the world without some sort of subsidy. None. These ideologues are so caught up in their rigid philosophical viewpoint that logic may be lucky to play any role. That's why good old political pressure from constituents i.e. how about all those suburban rail riders in GOP districts, needs to be brought to bare.


----------



## leemell (Jan 20, 2011)

John Bredin said:


> My rebuttal, *PJRACER*, is:
> 
> 1) This proposal if carried to fruition* would eliminate that long-distance Amtrak experience you plan on having, not just the HSR plan you don't like.
> 
> ...


As a multidecade recipient of Congressional funding (space) I agree wholheartedly with your view. I used to follow funding through Congress every year and finally concluded, that unless I was involved in advocating it, to wait until they actually reach a significant vote before analyzing what the possible impacts would be.


----------



## Gratt (Jan 20, 2011)

Yeah I saw this, and it really frustrating how thick-headed Republican's can be. Than again this is the same group that decided wasting taxpayer dollars on a pointless Obamacare repeal vote is a good idea.

Be happy Daxomni that in our state the legislature only meets for about 3 months every two years. It does not give them time to do too much damage. 

But seriously, while I think voicing our opinions are good I simply dont believe them when they "call to kill Amtrak" they are all fine for killing a line in another district or state but not when it hits their voters.

The Republicans have often called for killing Amtrak, nothing happened. When they had the White House and Congress nothing happened. Aside for the sunset east fiasco (which is more Amtrak's fault) not a single LD line or any major state line was cut in the past 10 years, in fact many have grown...

I would actually like to see a chart comparing Republican And Democratic administrations VS quality of Amtrak service.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 20, 2011)

Amtrak muddles along because it's a tiny, infinitesimal part of the federal budget that is more trouble to kill than its worth. It's not really a Republican vs. Democratic thing. The new Republican senator and representative from North Dakota are going to be just as strong supporters of the Empire Builder as the Democrats they replaced. Amtrak was started when there was a Republican in the White House, and the biggest cuts to the network (1979, 1997) happened when Democrats were President.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 20, 2011)

I think I recall George W. Bush zeroing Amtrak's budget in his proposal every year he was in office. So I am not too scared that Amtrak will be eliminated.

That being said, everybody should write to their boneheaded representatives in advocacy of Amtrak funding. Or go see them in person. And if you are going to go see people in person, keep in mind that you don't have to be from *state* to go to see *state's* representative and give him a piece of your mind.

All that being said, we should remember that we have some real looney toons in Congress this year, not logical reasonable people willing to make compromises. No, we have demented, deranged psychotics who actually believe that 52% of their voters picking them rather than some senile old incumbent means that the people are rally calling them to go and cut every single piece of funding they don't understand from the federal budget.

They'll be gone in a couple of years, god willing. If they aren't, I am going to be thoroughly convinced that our country is over.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 20, 2011)

I think you recall right, GML, about President Bush proposing a zero budget for Amtrak every year. And see how far he got, even when he had BOTH houses of Congress on the Republican side. As I recall, President Reagan had some zero budgets for Amtrak as well. And cutting Amtrak's budget would, in the scheme of things, have about the same effect as throwing a deck chair off the _Titanic._

And I've heard so many times candidates give off bold statements and find the political reality a whole nuther matter. Remember George H.W. Bush and "read my lips, no new taxes!!!"? The voters did---and when he was unable to keep that pledge, GHWB became a one-term President.

And, closer to home, in my Congressional district, in 1994, George Nethercutt, a Republican, ran on a promise of, if elected, only serving that one term, which was part of an anti-incumbent, term limits wave. He won---and his opponent was no ordinary long-term incumbant. He was Tom Foley, who was Speaker of the House Foley at the time. It was the first time in 130 years that the standing Speaker of the House was ousted. And Nethercutt??? Citing a vague notion that "there was more work to be done" went back on that promise to serve only one term. He in fact served five terms before stepping down in 2004 to run, unsuccessfully, for Senate here in Washington.

All that to say this (and I could cite many more examples): What candidates say they're going to do and what they end up doing is very often two different things. I will believe a zero budget for Amtrak when I see it, and not until then.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 20, 2011)

Actually, George W. Bush did not propose 0 every year. The first few years, I think he was generous enough to propose a couple hundred million (still far too little to run the system). In the later years, he proposed 0.

To Gratt's comment about not losing any routes in the past 10 years, we did lose the Three Rivers.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 20, 2011)

SO it looks like there won't be a 5th AU gathering since amtrak won't exist by then if the goverment gets there way  Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 20, 2011)

Tumbleweed said:


> What is the most effective method to contact Senators and Congressmen these days? E-mail? Their individual web page? telephone? hand-written snail mail? In-person while they are in their home state? Sounds like some grass roots voices need to be heard........and loudly!


The most effective method would be talking to your local and state media about what you expect of your public servants and how well they're performing that duty. Television, radio, and newspapers still offer the most bang for the buck if you can convince them to air or print your concerns in an relatively objective fashion. Second would be meeting your senator or representative in person with well crafted arguments backed up with corroborating data, either in their home district/state office or in DC. Unfortunately it can be rather hard to schedule an in-person meeting unless you're a professional lobbyist or you represent a large and/or powerful group of interests. Even then you'll have to be pretty flexible with scheduling _and_ rescheduling if someone or something more important comes along. Often you'll be asked to speak to a staffer instead and while that can be a great warm-up step it's not nearly as useful as talking directly to their boss. To get around this you can look for already scheduled events that are open to the public or have relatively simple membership requirements and express your concerns in-person there. Telephone calls generally result in little more than a ticking of this or that box the staffer thinks approximates your position, but at least they can be monitored in real time. Snail mail can sometimes get past the first line of readers if it's compelling enough, but it has to be scanned and inspected before being read and will often be so delayed that it won't arrive until long after whatever bill was pending has already been voted on. Emails are most useful when they are written from scratch in large numbers. Standard email addresses are often restricted or filtered for variables you're not aware of, leaving you with little choice but to use the official submission form on the politician's website. In addition you can also help bolster the effectiveness of other like-minded groups who share your concerns by becoming a member yourself and recruiting other members among your friends and family. Every new name and address a group like NARP can add to their membership rolls brings them a step closer to real relevance. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

No matter what you choose to do it's always better than doing nothing!


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 20, 2011)

daxomni said:


> First we had President George Bush and would-be president John McCain calling for the end of federal funding of Amtrak. Republican gubernatorial candidates joined the anti-rail chorus and campaigned on promises to refuse federal funds for passenger rail improvements and expansion if they couldn't be twisted and perverted into subsidies for trucks and automobiles instead. Now it looks as though the GOP-led House is not far behind on the bewildering but growing anti-rail bandwagon that is quickly developing into a fundamental platform position for the Republican party. Although there may not yet be enough Republicans in active office to completely defund Amtrak at this time the trend lines are clear. Presumably there will be some sort of reduction in a "compromise" between the House and the Senate. If the Republicans are able to regain political dominance Amtrak is likely to suffer a critical shortage of funds at their hands. I cannot predict exactly how much funding Amtrak will lose in a compromise bill or when the GOP will regain their former political clout, but I think it's safe to say it's going to happen eventually. The question that's bouncing around in my mind now is how much of Amtrak's current network can possibly survive on its own after all or most of their federal funding is finally lost?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last I looked the Socialists stil had control of the Senate,the Presidency and had all the key appointed positions at all the departments of government. If you really believe that Amtrak will be defunded it will take votes from both parties so each will need to share the blame. This country is in bad shape owing to many factors; reckless overspending, moving our entire manufacturing base to Communist China and punitive unfair taxation. We are so far in the red that nothing can change it. Best that we can hope for is to maintain the existing Amtrak budget and have wage freezes for all of their employees like everyone else in the private sector is getting.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 20, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> SO it looks like there won't be a 5th AU gathering since amtrak won't exist by then if the goverment gets there way  Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.



By all means, let's panic and assume the very worst. That always works for me.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 20, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> SO it looks like there won't be a 5th AU gathering since amtrak won't exist by then if the goverment gets there way  Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.


What "government"? Which "government"? This is (1) a proposal by (2) a group of legislators in (3) one chamber of a bicameral legislature. Even if the House voted for all these proposals, the Senate would have to approve. Even if the Senate approved, the President has a veto that Congress would have to muster a supermajority to over-ride.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 20, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> SO it looks like there won't be a 5th AU gathering since amtrak won't exist by then if the goverment gets there way  Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.


Don't be so sure about the future of passenger rail in Canada. Their idea of new equipment is rebuilding 60-year-old cars and buying surplus cars from Europe.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 20, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> Don't be so sure about the future of passenger rail in Canada. Their idea of new equipment is rebuilding 60-year-old cars and buying surplus cars from Europe.


but it works don't it. They also rebuilt most of the f40 fleet.


----------



## LA Resident (Jan 20, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > First we had President George Bush and would-be president John McCain calling for the end of federal funding of Amtrak. Republican gubernatorial candidates joined the anti-rail chorus and campaigned on promises to refuse federal funds for passenger rail improvements and expansion if they couldn't be twisted and perverted into subsidies for trucks and automobiles instead. Now it looks as though the GOP-led House is not far behind on the bewildering but growing anti-rail bandwagon that is quickly developing into a fundamental platform position for the Republican party. Although there may not yet be enough Republicans in active office to completely defund Amtrak at this time the trend lines are clear. Presumably there will be some sort of reduction in a "compromise" between the House and the Senate. If the Republicans are able to regain political dominance Amtrak is likely to suffer a critical shortage of funds at their hands. I cannot predict exactly how much funding Amtrak will lose in a compromise bill or when the GOP will regain their former political clout, but I think it's safe to say it's going to happen eventually. The question that's bouncing around in my mind now is how much of Amtrak's current network can possibly survive on its own after all or most of their federal funding is finally lost?
> ...


Socialists in charge but steadfast in support of our socialistic rail system. I guess that makes you a walking, or is it rail-riding contradiction? hboy:


----------



## SP&S (Jan 20, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That being said, everybody should write to their boneheaded representatives in advocacy of Amtrak funding. Or go see them in person. And if you are going to go see people in person, keep in mind that you don't have to be from *state* to go to see *state's* representative and give him a piece of your mind.


Indeed, communicate your views to your senators and representatives. Most politicians do pay attention to constituent feedback. Even though my state's delegation is small, left-leaning and generally rail-friendly, I will still be emailing them on this issue. Since personal visits can be difficult, short, thoughtful, considerate and well-reasoned emails and letters are, IMHO, the best means of communication.

I'm not worried that Amtrak will be cut, but I am concerned enough to make my voice heard. I would humbly request that everybody who values Amtrak make their voices heard too.


----------



## TransitGeek (Jan 20, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Last I looked the Socialists stil had control of the Senate,the Presidency and had all the key appointed positions at all the departments of government. If you really believe that Amtrak will be defunded it will take votes from both parties so each will need to share the blame. This country is in bad shape owing to many factors; reckless overspending, moving our entire manufacturing base to Communist China and punitive unfair taxation. We are so far in the red that nothing can change it. Best that we can hope for is to maintain the existing Amtrak budget and have wage freezes for all of their employees like everyone else in the private sector is getting.


There is only one Socialist in Congress- Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT. I think you give him too much credit.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 20, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Last I looked the Socialists


What Socialists?


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 20, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Last I looked the Socialists stil had control of the Senate,the Presidency and had all the key appointed positions at all the departments of government.


In my reality -- the sky is blue and the grass green, as a reference check -- the Democrats control the Senate, Presidency and executive departments. What socialists, much less Socialists, hold any elected office in the United States (except for one guy from Vermont)?   



> If you really believe that Amtrak will be defunded it will take votes from both parties so each will need to share the blame.


True.



> This country is in bad shape owing to many factors; reckless overspending,


Which started under a Republican President who was handed a surplus by his Democratic predecessor, and which arose when that Republican President decided to send Congress budgets that didn't include two wars. Since when do wars have their own revenue source independent of the general treasury so they can be in a separate budget? :blink:



> moving our entire manufacturing base to Communist China


First, there are factories here, I've seen them.  From passing trains even, to keep this on-topic. :giggle: Second and foremost, unless you're a socialist too, you must acknowledge that it wasn't our -- the government or society as a whole -- manufacturing base to command _ipse dixit_ to "stay" here. It was and is owned by the companies that own the factories, whose shareholders have always included Americans and non-Americans and who have always been free to put their factories wherever they were legal.



> and punitive unfair taxation.


Those rates weren't considered punitive under Reagan or Bush the Elder, or indeed any of the Republican presidents going back to Eisenhower. The Eisenhower tax rates were higher than any of the rates inherited by Bush the Lesser.



> Best that we can hope for is to maintain the existing Amtrak budget and have wage freezes for all of their employees like everyone else in the private sector is getting.


Assuming for the sake of argument that the overall budget has to be frozen, what makes the highway or aviation budgets sacrosanct? <_< If the pie isn't going to get any bigger, I have no problem advocating taking some pie from the morbidly obese Federal Highways Administration and giving it to the skinny Federal Transit Administration and the emaciated Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak. We don't need any new roads or airports, just enough to duly maintain the ones we have. We do need more transit and intercity rail.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 20, 2011)

John Bredin said:


> > This country is in bad shape owing to many factors; reckless overspending,
> 
> 
> Which started under a Republican President who was handed a surplus by his Democratic predecessor, and which arose when that Republican President decided to send Congress budgets that didn't include two wars. Since when do wars have their own revenue source independent of the general treasury so they can be in a separate budget? :blink:


Don't forget the "temporary" tax cuts that were jammed through using the budget reconciliation process that somehow became "undemocratic" when the 111th Congress used it.


> > moving our entire manufacturing base to Communist China
> 
> 
> First, there are factories here, I've seen them.  From passing trains even, to keep this on-topic. :giggle: Second and foremost, unless you're a socialist too, you must acknowledge that it wasn't our -- the government or society as a whole -- manufacturing base to command _ipse dixit_ to "stay" here. It was and is owned by the companies that own the factories, whose shareholders have always included Americans and non-Americans and who have always been free to put their factories wherever they were legal.


In fact, never has more stuff been made in America. Never before have so few been so productive.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 20, 2011)

JayPea said:


> By all means, let's panic and assume the very worst. That always works for me.


I don't think anyone is calling for panic. At least I hope not. It's true that Amtrak as it exists today is _far_ from being completely defunded. Nor will it be defunded next week or next month or even next year. That still doesn't change the fact that the anti-rail crowd isn't changing course or going away. Rather they appear to be growing in size and power over time. Already we can kiss goodbye any notion of additional funding that might have addressed current issues and complications or helped us catch up with more modern systems. Even worse is the realization that after the extremist rhetoric dies down and a "compromise" with the Senate is in place we're still likely to see at least _some_ cuts to passenger rail funding. I don't know about you but I don't consider a cut of _any_ size to be a good thing in our current situation. Sure, we can postpone maintenance and service if we really want to, but eventually it will come back to bite us in the ass and already has in some cases. My main reason for drawing attention to this continuing development is that of genuine concern for the future. Nearly everything I'm reading today seems to be pointing to stronger and stronger rhetoric followed by deeper and deeper cuts down the road. In an era where our passenger rail network is already several decades behind contemporary rail systems I don't want to watch us fall even further and further behind. If average Americans aren't impressed with today's underfunded Amtrak they're going to be even less impressed with tomorrow's maintenance-deferred Amtrak. Not long ago it seemed like passenger rail was on the cusp of a major resurgence in America, but today it's only a couple swings away from being back on the ropes again. That's not a situation I find acceptable and I don't see why any other railfan would either.


----------



## eagle628 (Jan 20, 2011)

The republicans (in general, especially tea party types, not saying all of them are like that) are going to put up a great fuss about this, rather like what they did with the repeal of the health care bill in Congress, but like that, I think whatever happens will be largely symbolic. With a democratic senate and a democratic white house, I think any massive spending cuts in general (and Amtrak cuts in particular) are unlikely in the next year or so. That's not to say *any* spending cuts are impossible, nor that all is well and good because nothing's going to happen, because there will doubtless be a dem/repub compromise bill of some sort, but rather there's still time for us lowly citizens to try and do something about it before it's time for everyone to panic. The apocalypse is not nigh.


----------



## JayPea (Jan 20, 2011)

When I made that post you refer to, Daxomni, I was replying specifically to the idea that 1) the gathering will not be held because there will be no Amtrak come October and 2) we should all move to Canada. I think those two ideas in my eyes constitutes panic.

I certainly don't want to see cuts of any size to Amtrak, either. There will always be cases where Amtrak or anyone else can make better use of the money they have. I have sent emails to both senators from my state (Amtrak supporters) and my representative (unfortunately, not an Amtrak supporter) stating my support for Amtrak.'

So to sum up, I was just referring to one certain post and nothing else.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 20, 2011)

We've been down this road before.

Don't ever forget that one of the worst things that ever happened to Amtrak was Warrington and period of slogans without substance which happened when supposedly all the stars adn planets were aligned in Amtrak's favor.

As to people like oru Floridian: he is just spouting the usual anti-rail talking points. it is time to put a brain in gear to filter the intake of ear before output of mouth (or fingers as the case is here.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 20, 2011)

The Tea Party scares me. Not in regard to rail in particular, but rather in general. They are a bunch of raving loons. Anybody with sense in their head should dismiss them as a bad joke. As people know, I lean to the left. I respect people who lean to the right. Like Mr. Harris. We disagree, but his positions are logical and reasonable and I wouldn't call them nuts.

The Tea Party is nuts. They want "smaller government". Wonderful buzzwords, applied as such they are just an election gambit. I can accept that.

But they seem to want cuts, for no rhyme or reason other than to cut and to make government smaller. The Tea Party took the CBO, listened to what they said, and dismissed it as utter nonsense because what they say doesn't make sense on the most superficial of levels.

Dismantling programs always cost money. Any politician should know that. You have to pay all kinds of costs when you get rid of something. The CBO came up with those costs- that is the CBOs job. Killing the health care bill this late in the game result in about $230 billion in sunk costs. End of discussion.

There are all kinds of reasons why someone could reasonbly not like the health care reform legislation. It has its positive points and its drawbacks. They ignore all of them and shout KILL KILL KILL! THE FACTS ARE A LIE KILL KILL KILL!

And for that I brand them as stupid, crazy, and scary. Remove all logic and sense from somebody and they become a destructive machine. Like a suicide bomber, except these people are using legislative bombs to unleash it on our government without rhyme or reason.

What's even scarier is that the American public voted for these lunatics. If the American people can't recognize that this is the kind of reform that will destroy us, then I am scared.


----------



## Spokker (Jan 20, 2011)

I would support the de-funding of all rail-related ventures, including Amtrak, high speed rail and federal support for local projects, if Republicans pledge to make significant cuts in defense spending.

But that's the hypocrisy of it. They want their toys and we want ours.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 20, 2011)

Don't forget the nude-o-scope machines at airports. Sure, some people find them intrusive, and they probably won't prevent terrorist attacks, but there *are* people making money off of them.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 20, 2011)

It's funny that you should mention that...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html


----------



## AlanB (Jan 20, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Actually, George W. Bush did not propose 0 every year. The first few years, I think he was generous enough to propose a couple hundred million (still far too little to run the system). In the later years, he proposed 0.


Correct!

The White House only sent over a zero dollar budget to Congress for Amtrak in 2005 & 2006. Both times the Republican controlled Congress rejected that idea and gave Amtrak a small increase over the prior year.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 20, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Last I looked the Socialists stil had control of the Senate, the Presidency and had all the key appointed positions at all the departments of government.


Yet another lost sheeple. So Sad.....


----------



## volkris (Jan 21, 2011)

Instead of complaining that you wouldn't be able to send every American (and every American child for generations) a bill for your personal pet project anymore, it'd be really nice to see the Amtrak supporters working on concrete solutions for funding their wants without demanding that federal government shake down fellow citizens for cash.

Step one? Get past "two wrongs make a right" arguments. They don't bring anyone to your side, don't grow your political clout, and only make you look like whiny children. That taxes are wrongly diverted to highways doesn't mean they should also be wrongly diverted to Amtrak. That taxes are diverted in countries around the world doesn't mean they should also be diverted here. Those two arguments are as widespread as they are unconvincing to anyone not already on board.

Then figure out ways to make Amtrak truly valuable to more customers instead of the badly run, surprisingly unreliable, amazingly customer unfriendly entity that it is today.

But most of all, get over your entitlement mentality; stop stomping your feet like children every time someone discusses whether or not you should get some money thrown your way and then complaining that it's never enough. It only hurts your cause.

Personally, after years of horrible experiences east of the Rockies I'm convinced the number one thing standing in the way of passenger rail in the US is Amtrak itself. The sooner it collapses the better, then we can start working on a system that actually works.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2011)

Ah, just when this thread couldn't get any crazier.

"Acting like children" is right up there with "Socialists control the government" in statements that are completely fabricated out of thin air that only serve to make their author look like a complete loon. Let us know when you stop constructing strawmen to fit your own twisted and unrealistic world view and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation. Nobody is making any "two wrongs make a right" argument, because you're the only one making the case that federal spending on air and road transit is wrong.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2011)

volkris said:


> Personally, after years of horrible experiences east of the Rockies I'm convinced the number one thing standing in the way of passenger rail in the US is Amtrak itself. The sooner it collapses the better, then we can start working on a system that actually works.


If Amtrak collapses you won't be working on building a system that actually works. There will be no system, period.

When Amtrak goes away so do the agreements with the freight RR's and there will never be another sweet heart deal like Amtrak currently has. That only means that more money will be neeeded for any future service, which will only serve to make it unviable and unprofitable. You may not like the argument that roads & planes are subsidized, but the simple reality is that the free market does not exist as long as those subsidies are in place. And therefore passenger rail cannot exist on its own without subsidies for as long as the market is interferred with by government.

That means one of two things, either no passenger rail or subsidies to passenger rail.


----------



## rrdude (Jan 21, 2011)

SP&S said:


> "................. but I am concerned enough to make my voice heard. I would humbly request that everybody who values Amtrak make their voices heard too."


This is the real issue. It flat-out *SUX* that we have to fight/voice-our-support on a regular basis, but it is what it is.

I challenge every member and guest of this forum to take FIVE MINUTES today, and fire off an email to each of their elected officials, regardless of whether they are "for" or "against" Amtrak today, and let them know you want them to SUPPORT add'l funding, and to FIGHT any cuts.

Click HERE for a link on contact info for your elected officials.


----------



## Gratt (Jan 21, 2011)

I sympathize with the comments of everyone posting here even if we dont agree on other political issues (and isn't that what is great about this country ^_^ )

We all care about quality passenger rail in this country and we believe that it is in the public's benefit to ensure its survival and growth.

That means we need to find a way to make passenger rail a priority to *BOTH* political parties which will require different arguments.

The example I would give is what is generally defined as "energy independence" despite how inaccurate I believe the term is it is a bipartisan issue for very different reasons, Conservatives like it because they see it as freedom from outside influence a national security issue, liberals see it as an environmental issue. The result is while there is fighting progress is being made, 40% of our new electrical generation came from wind last year, and the CAFE standards on new cars are set to rise. That is progress, we can do the same for rail.

My first suggestion/question would be is their any way we can make tax cuts for freight RR = better passenger service. I think a lot of conservatives could support that.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 21, 2011)

It is no suprise to anyone here in the forums to know that I am staunchly conservative. That being said, I have always maintained that the Government (State or Federal) shouldn't be charged with playing trains.

As an avid train fan, I do enjoy the fact that Amtrak is still in service and I try to ride whenever I can - even if it's just for 30 minutes a year (which is about what my wife allows me to spend). Sure, I would love to see the Gov eliminate everything else before Amtrak, but I'm sure that all those food stamp recipients don't want their services cut either.

That all being said, I think that the whole Amtrak theology needs to be reinvented. Amtrak should not be a gift from God or Government, but a product of sound planning and fiscal responsibility.

It is true that just running trains is too expensive for any private enterprise to consider. However, a company can have a loss leader and still turn a profit if there are many profiting facets to the business model.

First focus on the NEC. Yes, that hurts me because I don't live on the NEC and I would not be a part of this. But hang on. EVERY station on the NEC, already owned and operated by Amtrak, should be chock full of rented retail space. There should be bulletin boards full of revenue advertising on the platforms and in the trains. The trains, ie: Acela, should be lengthened to meet a 90% occupancy demand rate so revenue isn't lost.

Then it gets tricky. Amtrak should own its own powerplants to power the Amtrak grid at wholesale cost. It should operate a surplus of energy and sell the rest.

The unions have got to get under control. Eliminate the pension. Establish a Roth or Traditional 401(k) retirement package. Cross train each employee within thier discipline. Align salaries with similar airline peers.

Reduce management to essentials. Demand outside contractors to perform to get paid.

Provide excellent customer service. Ridership may be up, but growth cannot be sustained if new riders only ride once because they hate the experience.

When this is successfully accomplished, then revenue should begin to outpace expenses.

Long distance routes should be accounted for with a proper overhead proration and should offer various levels of service that are consistent and established.

Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will get past the first step. Amtrak philosophy is more like a Theology - it can't ever seem to change. They keep trying and trying and trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity.

As for the money going to Highways, I don't care if they want to reduce those and charge me tolls. But I-95 is in major need of some repair in this area and I travel it every single day. That's where I'd rather see my money spent.


----------



## Grandpa D (Jan 21, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> It is no suprise to anyone here in the forums to know that I am staunchly conservative. That being said, I have always maintained that the Government (State or Federal) shouldn't be charged with playing trains.
> 
> As an avid train fan, I do enjoy the fact that Amtrak is still in service and I try to ride whenever I can - even if it's just for 30 minutes a year (which is about what my wife allows me to spend). Sure, I would love to see the Gov eliminate everything else before Amtrak, but I'm sure that all those food stamp recipients don't want their services cut either.
> 
> ...


You've got my vote.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2011)

That all sounds great, but if there were money to be made doing that, private industry would be pushing to make that happen.

The fact is, there isn't enough revenue in selling ad space and extra power to subsidize passenger trains.


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> SO it looks like there won't be a 5th AU gathering since amtrak won't exist by then if the goverment gets there way  Lets move to canada at least they have some rail left.


A bunch of crazy Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) is not equal to government. 

It may very well turn out that the current crop of Republicans in Congress are the best thing that happened for Obama.  Ya never know!


----------



## Gratt (Jan 21, 2011)

Ryan said:


> That all sounds great, but if there were money to be made doing that, private industry would be pushing to make that happen.
> 
> The fact is, there isn't enough revenue in selling ad space and extra power to subsidize passenger trains.



Agreed, billboard and poster advertising is not what it once was. How about another idea though. Amtrak has a unique branding position being the only intercity passenger rail service. Corporations might want to capitalize on that by promoting them as a "proud supporter" of Amtrak, __ LD train, ___ train station, etc.

I can see an ad for GE touting their locomotives (if those are the ones used) being used exclusively* to pull the EB though the cold and harsh conditions of Montana and ND. With a tag line of "Amtrak trusts us to carry them though the winter, So you can trust us with X." In return for such ads they would give Amtrak money, equipment, services or anything else deemed of value.

I dont think it would do a lot, but I dont think it can hurt.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 21, 2011)

SP&S said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, everybody should write to their boneheaded representatives in advocacy of Amtrak funding. Or go see them in person. And if you are going to go see people in person, keep in mind that you don't have to be from *state* to go to see *state's* representative and give him a piece of your mind.
> ...


Although when you write your letter, don't start it "Dear Bonehead."


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2011)

Gratt said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > That all sounds great, but if there were money to be made doing that, private industry would be pushing to make that happen.
> ...


RRdude's posted that idea before, and they're all excellent ideas that Amtrak could use to bring in some much needed extra cash.

But the thought that it would bring enough cash to eliminate the government subsidy is ridiculous.


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2011)

volkris said:


> Instead of complaining that you wouldn't be able to send every American (and every American child for generations) a bill for your personal pet project anymore, it'd be really nice to see the Amtrak supporters working on concrete solutions for funding their wants without demanding that federal government shake down fellow citizens for cash.
> 
> Step one? Get past "two wrongs make a right" arguments. They don't bring anyone to your side, don't grow your political clout, and only make you look like whiny children. That taxes are wrongly diverted to highways doesn't mean they should also be wrongly diverted to Amtrak. That taxes are diverted in countries around the world doesn't mean they should also be diverted here. Those two arguments are as widespread as they are unconvincing to anyone not already on board.
> 
> ...


So we now know what to not do Oh Great Teacher! The sermons on what not to do is usually the easy part. So we await to hear your brilliant plan on what to do. Of course if we don't get one then we will know that you are as much a charlatan as the next guy, just blowing smoke.  Of course you being a mere mortal like the rest, we will understand if you really don't have a plan and are just blowing smoke too. 

Please provide details on where you will get the seed money to start a new venture such as you appear to deem feasible without any support from the government to create a "working system" replacing the broken Amtrak system. We are waiting to hear your pearls of wisdom. Also please provide details on how you will sell whatever brilliant idea that you have to anyone other than yourself.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 21, 2011)

Jis: Sarcasm noted, I will point out that the Repub/T-Party charlatans were elected all over in the past election by not having any kind of plan for improving or replacing what they wanted to "cut" or do away with! Lots of these idiots, er, statesmen now that they are in office, ran against HSR/Amtrak/rail programs in their citiy/ districts/states/ nationally without any kind of clue how they could improve or replace exisiting and proposed rail projects! When the chickens come home to roost soon, theyll all turn into apologists for pork, er funding, going to their area since they were only against Washington and the Liberals that were socializing America! Be interesting to see what the millions of folks that commute think when the so called freeways and express ways get even more crowded and go into total gridlock! It says here that Amtrak Joe better get busy and light a fire under the President and his team of ill advisors so they will start fighting and not roll over again, the hour grows late!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 21, 2011)

rrdude said:


> SP&S said:
> 
> 
> > "................. but I am concerned enough to make my voice heard. I would humbly request that everybody who values Amtrak make their voices heard too."
> ...


I think I've written fifteen different letters this month to various people (the Dishon. Frank R. Lautenberg, Christie, Cuomo, Menendez, and Pallone come to mind off the bat) and that's before I heard of the agenda of zeroing Amtrak funding. But doing that isn't enough.

Our voice in Washington will never be heard so long as a corrupt, inept organization for funding Ross Capon continues to be our figure head for national rail advocacy. We need organizations promoting passenger rail that works. Organizations consisting of more than just rail fans asking for long distance trains from nowhere to noplace with dome cars. I like the long distance network, and I like having trains that have sleeping cars and whatnot.

And if running more of them makes sense, we should get them. But what I want, god damnit, is a way to get from, say, Trenton to Hazleton without owning a car. Or anywhere to Hornell, even. I don't care if the train passes through scenic vistas, has a dining car, a sleeping car, or a baggage car. I just want to get there.

We have people who are disabled, blind, or otherwise incapable of owning and operating an automobile. And there are thousands of cities in this country they can't get to either at all or without the trip being an ordeal involving half a dozen transfers. That is why we need rail and other mass transit. The fact that sticking a dining car and self-sufficient sleeper cars on the back of the train makes financial sense is why they should be there, and the only reason they should be mentioned.



VentureForth said:


> That all being said, I think that the whole Amtrak theology needs to be reinvented. Amtrak should not be a gift from God or Government, but a product of sound planning and fiscal responsibility.
> 
> It is true that just running trains is too expensive for any private enterprise to consider. However, a company can have a loss leader and still turn a profit if there are many profiting facets to the business model.
> 
> ...


Under George Warrington, Amtrak attempted to become self sufficient via mechanisms you describe, to the point where passengers were almost considered incidental. Now, George Warrington, thank god he's dead, didn't have the intelligence or honesty to manage a toy train set, let alone a real rail road. But the failure for Amtrak's attempt at self sufficiency rests only 95% on his head.

The other reason is that various private enterprises saw Amtrak doing these things as bad for the various private enterprises. So they whined to Congress and local politicians and they stripped most of these private ventures from Amtrak's book of things they could do to become self sufficient.

If we could manage to actually allow Amtrak to become self sufficient via the use of ancillary enterprises, we might have a chance. If we invested in Amtrak to the point where the equipment didn't belong in museums, and didn't need to be heavily overhauled, at half the price of new equipment, every five years just to have a MTBF of over 5000 miles, then Amtrak could be reasonable made operationally self sufficient (excluding the Corridor) under its current system. Then we could make a one shot investment to allow it to start ancillary businesses to cover its (non-NEC) capital expenses. Finally, we could create a separate agency to own and maintain the tracks of the NEC.

And if we did all that, Amtrak as it is could be self sustaining. Maybe even profitable.

But we can't do that. All good intentions are always outnumbered by greed and stupidity. Welcome to America.



MikefromCrete said:


> Although when you write your letter, don't start it "Dear Bonehead."


Actually, that might not be a bad idea. It would get your letter noticed from out of the thousands they get every day.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 21, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> It is no suprise to anyone here in the forums to know that I am staunchly conservative. That being said, I have always maintained that the Government (State or Federal) shouldn't be charged with playing trains.
> 
> As an avid train fan, I do enjoy the fact that Amtrak is still in service and I try to ride whenever I can - even if it's just for 30 minutes a year (which is about what my wife allows me to spend). Sure, I would love to see the Gov eliminate everything else before Amtrak, but I'm sure that all those food stamp recipients don't want their services cut either.


A typical conservative argument. You like to pit one tiny program against another, while ignoring the massive financial black holes that currently eat up our federal budget. For example, military spending for FY10 was estimated at something north of $700 billion.

Why should Amtrak's money have to come from "food stamps"?



> That all being said, I think that the whole Amtrak theology needs to be reinvented. Amtrak should not be a gift from God or Government, but a product of sound planning and fiscal responsibility.


Who is calling Amtrak a gift from god? Further, why single out Amtrak? If you're going to go after Amtrak, you should go after all transportation.



> It is true that just running trains is too expensive for any private enterprise to consider. However, a company can have a loss leader and still turn a profit if there are many profiting facets to the business model.
> First focus on the NEC. Yes, that hurts me because I don't live on the NEC and I would not be a part of this. But hang on. EVERY station on the NEC, already owned and operated by Amtrak, should be chock full of rented retail space. There should be bulletin boards full of revenue advertising on the platforms and in the trains. The trains, ie: Acela, should be lengthened to meet a 90% occupancy demand rate so revenue isn't lost.


If you've visited any NEC station recently (apparently you haven't), you'd see that this is already the case.



> Then it gets tricky. Amtrak should own its own powerplants to power the Amtrak grid at wholesale cost. It should operate a surplus of energy and sell the rest.


So, you're advocating one of two things here. Either, the government get into the power plant business (socialism), or Amtrak is its own private company, who happens to own power plants and all sorts of everything else. If Amtrak ran as a private company, then the shareholders would want Amtrak to get rid of the passenger trains and focus on the money-making businesses. What have we accomplished, then? As far as I can tell, we've just created another energy company, and still need someone to pay for the losses on passenger trains.



> The unions have got to get under control. Eliminate the pension. Establish a Roth or Traditional 401(k) retirement package. Cross train each employee within thier discipline. Align salaries with similar airline peers.


Please cite examples of unions being "out of control." As for the "pension," as you call it, it's really Railroad Retirement, which is the railroad version of social security. It's not an Amtrak pension. Amtrak management employees already have 401(k) options in addition to Railroad Retirement. It's no difference than any other company offering 4019k) contributions plus Social Security.

Thanks for playing, though.



> Reduce management to essentials. Demand outside contractors to perform to get paid.


Define "essential." Also, please provide examples of outside contractors not performing.



> Provide excellent customer service. Ridership may be up, but growth cannot be sustained if new riders only ride once because they hate the experience.
> When this is successfully accomplished, then revenue should begin to outpace expenses.
> 
> Long distance routes should be accounted for with a proper overhead proration and should offer various levels of service that are consistent and established.


I don't know where you're going with this (overhead proration and whatnot). But, you seem to be of the assumption that the average rider hates the Amtrak experience. My impression is different. Amtrak is not perfect, but then again, neither is any private, for-profit corporation.

As far as consistency in service, one of the things that has hurt Amtrak has been the constant threat of elimination, combined with the inability to plan for more than a few months to one year out (which is a direct result of said threat). Amtrak has had five different presidents over the past decade, which makes it difficult to fully carry out any major programs from start to finish.



> Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will get past the first step. Amtrak philosophy is more like a Theology - it can't ever seem to change. They keep trying and trying and trying the same thing and expecting different results. That is the definition of insanity.


Amtrak has continuously attempted to change. The problem is that, whenever we're almost getting somewhere, some bulls*** Congressional mandate comes down (generally inserted by some conservative politician) that micromanages some aspect of Amtrak's operation and stops the plan. For example, in the mid-2000s, Amtrak was in the process of enhancing service on its long-distance trains, starting with the Empire Builder. Shortly afterward came an edict from Congress that said Amtrak must reduce its *food-service* losses. Not overall losses, mind you. No, they singled out food-service. So, these "good-business sense fiscally responsible conservatives" didn't give a damn whether an increase in food-service losses might actually generate more revenue elsewhere to more than offset the cost of food. (You see, people who actually understood business and economics would realize that some things have to be loss leaders in order to support the business as a whole. Unfortunately, many of those in Congress, both past and present, don't understand business and economics.)

As a result, Amtrak had to put a stop to the program and instead implement a cut in food service. In subsequent years, those restrictions have been lifted and Amtrak has been able to enhance food service again, and overall system ridership and revenues have grown. Amtrak has been able to increase ticket prices on certain trains concurrent with an increase in the quality of food service. The net for Amtrak has been a win, no thanks to the conservatives in Congress which set Amtrak back about five years in getting to this point.

Right now, Amtrak is performing long-distance route reviews as required by the PRIIA law, and is recommending enhancements to the service. Unfortunately, so much is outside of Amtrak's control, that it may be years (if ever) before some of the most major enhancements (improved frequency) are realized.

Amtrak has been woefully undercapitalized for its entire existence. Many of the changes that you have been suggesting above (those that are in any way realistic and haven't already been done, that is), require a massive infusion of initial capital. Who would provide it?

Back during the last round of "Amtrak should be self-sufficient (but we won't worry about subsidies to airlines or highways)" nonsense, which was in the late 1990s (the last ARRA, or the "Amtrak Reform and Reauthorization Act," which also created the Amtrak Reform Council), Congress authorized $5 billion to help Amtrak on its way towards self-sufficiency. Over the life of the authorization (I want to say it was 1998-2002, or roughly equivalent to George Warrington's tenure), Amtrak only received half that amount. If Amtrak was ever going to grow itself into a better financial situation, that other $2.5 billion would have gone a long way.

Instead, Amtrak was so short of cash that they had to park equipment instead of rehabbing it, and wound up mortgaging New York Penn Station just to make payroll. Some of the fault lay with George Warrington, but even he had a plan that would have grown the long-distance network, as well as corridors. It didn't happen, in part, because of the lack of equipment, which could have been addressed had the full authorization been appropriated ($2.5 billion today would be the equivalent of about 1000 passenger cars).

With a greatly expanded system, average overhead would go down (spread across more service), and increased connectivity would lead to much greater revenue. Amtrak understood this then, and Amtrak understands this now. What Amtrak doesn't have is the money needed to make that initial investment. The conservatives in Congress seem hell bent on ensuring Amtrak will never have it.

To say that Amtrak never changes is to ignore reality. What doesn't change is the political view of Amtrak.



> As for the money going to Highways, I don't care if they want to reduce those and charge me tolls. But I-95 is in major need of some repair in this area and I travel it every single day. That's where I'd rather see my money spent.


Great. Because more of my tax money goes to subsidize your highways than your tax money goes to subsidize my transit. Amtrak's cost recovery is north of 70%, whereas highways are around 50%. Maybe it's the highways that you should be attacking, and not Amtrak.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 21, 2011)

Wow.

Great post, Trogdor.


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 21, 2011)

Here's an idea in the event that Amtrak long-distance trains cease to exist.

Since the 1960s, when they bowed out of the passenger business, freight railroads have seen a huge increase in high-priority intermodal traffic. These "Z" trains, as they are called on UP and BNSF, move at perhaps 2/3 the average speed of Amtrak LD trains, sometimes approaching Amtrak speed. They originate and terminate in large cities, and stop in intermediate large cities to pick up/drop off cars. I bet the freight railroads would much rather deal with a passenger car or two tacked onto the end of these trains than with stopping all of their Z trains to give Amtrak priority.

Freight railroad typical revenue: 3 cents per ton-mile

Weight of Superliner coach: 60 tons

Capacity of baggage coach: 62 people

Ton-miles Portland-Chicago: 2200 miles*60 tons: 132,000

Cost at 3 cents per ton-mile: $3960

Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64

Add on car attendants, switching, station fees, maintenance: ~$100-140

Current cost of trip (Amtrak low bucket coach): ~$180 (averaging peak and off-peak season prices)

Current cost of trip (Greyhound): $184

Many would object to treating passengers like freight, but the main advantages would be:

1) Negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak trains are way over-powered, with 2-3 4000 hp locomotives pulling 10-12 cars. Freights use three 4000 hp engines to pull over 100 cars, and tacking a few cars on the end wouldn't increase energy use by very much.

2) Cheap, self-supporting cross-country travel. No subsidies required.

Of course, this would require a different sort of self-contained car, with batteries/generators to provide heat and power rather than HEP, and I'd love to see a high-capacity sleeper design like the "couchette" cars that I was introduced to in Europe. Passengers would bring their own food, with some basics available for purchase in case folks came unprepared. Smoke/fresh air breaks would correspond to crew change/refueling points. Transit times would be guaranteed (e.g. Portland to Chicago in under 65 hours), as is the case with Z trains anyway, and the cars would typically arrive at their destinations ahead of these deadlines. Satellite internet would allow passengers to continue business on the train, partially offsetting the long travel times. Stations would be located close to intermodal yards, with minimal services, and cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of freight cars, keeping the passenger cars at the rear. The train would not spot cars at intermediate stations (e.g. St. Paul). Rather the train would stop in an intermodal yard and cars for St. Paul would be removed while cars loaded in St. Paul in advance of the train's arrival would be added on, and the train would continue with minimal delay. In effect the cars would be self-contained habitable spaces, maintained during the journey by a crew of two attendants and serviced at the terminating stations.

I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...

Mark


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 21, 2011)

anir dendroica said:


> I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...
> 
> Mark


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


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 21, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> anir dendroica said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...
> ...


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


----------



## Grandpa D (Jan 21, 2011)

anir dendroica said:


> Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64
> 
> Add on car attendants, switching, station fees, maintenance: ~$100-140
> 
> ...


Current cost of trip (Alaska Airlines): $169 and takes ~ 7 hours.
Gets real hard to attract customers with that little difference in price.


----------



## eagle628 (Jan 21, 2011)

Grandpa D said:


> anir dendroica said:
> 
> 
> > Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64
> ...



I like LD trains because they provide better service than planes for close to the same price. Time doesn't really matter to me. But if rail and air are equivilent in terms of both comfort and price, than the plane will win every time because time becomes the only factor left.


----------



## monorailfan1 (Jan 21, 2011)

> That all being said, I think that the whole Amtrak theology needs to be reinvented. Amtrak should not be a gift from God or Government, but a product of sound planning and fiscal responsibility.


Wow- great post Ventureforth. Seriously, a welcome attempt at other ideas.



> Our voice in Washington will never be heard so long as a corrupt, inept organization for funding Ross Capon continues to be our figure head for national rail advocacy. We need organizations promoting passenger rail that works. Organizations consisting of more than just rail fans asking for long distance trains from nowhere to noplace with dome cars. I like the long distance network, and I like having trains that have sleeping cars and whatnot.


Good luck with that GML.

And here is where Trogdor really gets it wrong:



> Great. Because more of my tax money goes to subsidize your highways than your tax money goes to subsidize my transit. Amtrak's cost recovery is north of 70%, whereas highways are around 50%. Maybe it's the highways that you should be attacking, and not Amtrak.


Seriously Trogdor? Do you also think bringing a knife to a gunfight is a good idea?



> I would support the de-funding of all rail-related ventures, including Amtrak, high speed rail and federal support for local projects, if Republicans pledge to make significant cuts in defense spending.


DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! Let's delve more into Spokker's comment, shall we?

The way I read this thread, its a lot of 'let's get rail advocates together and write our congressmen' to get Passenger rail's share of the government subsidy money.

But its not Highways and airways, per Trogdor. The subsidy $ goes to corporations and the jobs they provide.

Airways:

-Boeing

-Airbus

-Embraer

-Bombardier

-GE Aircraft Engines

-Pratt

-Rolls

-Airlines

-Airfreight cargo companies

-Countless airport and airway infrastructure contractors

Highways:

-All global auto manufactures and their suppliers

-All global truck manufacturers

-Roadway freight & trucking (soon to be Mexican trucking companies too!)

-Countless highway infrastructure contractors

-Highway real-estate (hotels, gas stations, etc)

Let's see what companies and well-paying jobs Passenger Rail brings to the subsidy money fight:

-Locomotive Builders - 200 units every 20 years? Did EMD even bother last time?

-Passenger car builders - what, every 40 years a few hundred?

-Infrastructure - except for NEC, handled by Class 1 coporations and their subcontractors with not nearly as many subsidies

So a bunch of 'passenger rail advocates' writing to their congressmen are going to out-lobby major global corporations that use the Airway and Highway subsidies to provide millions of jobs across all 50 states, Democrat and Republican districts?

If the above fails to make sense, and for an answer to Spokker's comments, google 'Eisenhower Military -Industrial Complex', which ironically, despite Eisenhower's criticism, should instead be called 'Eisenhower - Military, Industrial and Highway Complex'.

Best of luck to you all.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 21, 2011)

> Many would object to treating passengers like freight, but the main advantages would be:1) Negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak trains are way over-powered, with 2-3 4000 hp locomotives pulling 10-12 cars. Freights use three 4000 hp engines to pull over 100 cars, and tacking a few cars on the end wouldn't increase energy use by very much.
> 
> 2) Cheap, self-supporting cross-country travel. No subsidies required.


Normally one engine is using it's generators to prove electricity, that darn HEP we like so much. The lead engine, at any given time, is usually the only one actually pulling the train. the third unit is required to climb grades on mountains or is there for protection and backup.

Let's see a hundred car double stack provide HEP, we'd have to go back to the days of generator cars.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but you are not going to see the freight railroads get back into the passenger business without subsidy.

If they could make money off of it, they would do it today.

As for Mr. Monorailfan, please tell me what was "wrong" with what I said.

More money goes toward subsidizing highways than subsidizing transit or Amtrak. That is a fact. If you're going to say this country is broke and the government can't afford stuff, then you're going to have to make large cuts, not small cuts. The subsidy to Amtrak, no matter which way you slice it, is still a small cut.

I'm not suggesting we outlobby the multibillion-dollar global corporations (I mean, "people"). My post was really more directed at the handful of folks on here who seem to have it in their own head that we can't afford Amtrak and we ought to give up on it and cut it.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jan 22, 2011)

You can also, heaven forbid the suggestion, _raise_ taxes. Not just on the wealthy but on a whole.

Last year I had an income well over $10,000 but less than $20,000. Between my all of my deductions (mileage, college tuition, and standard) I got every cent I paid to the Fed back, and most of my Ohio money back.

I'm going to take the money back as long as I am allowed to get it-- but, I did use government services last year and I didn't have to pay for them. That's not right.

Americans are spoiled with low taxes (especially on the wealthy) and government services. We want lower taxes and more service. Illinois proposes a modest increase in income tax, STATE income tax no less. It is a good idea. In many states it is either that or massive cuts a la Camden, NJ.

An edit to make my point clear--

I am not suggesting raising taxes for everybody right now is a good idea. My mother, for instance, has very very little income and basically survives as long as I have better than minimum wage jobs. Raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%, or 5%, whatever, for a few years. Then once the unemployment rate is down and economy has recovered raise them for middle class too. The point is to get the Fed to a point of solvency, if we're so worried about borrowing money from China, then we either have to make drastic cuts or raise taxes. Probably a combination thereof.

So here you go Mr. President, a lower-middle class citizen who is willing to pay MORE (or at least pay something) to the government if it means I can keep my police department and my portion of SSI/D and Medicare/aid.

In a few months my household will be on Medicaid. as our annual income last year was less than it needed to be for two people. But I had enough discretionary income to make a nice Hurrah in a vacation, knowing that it would be our last chance in awhile to squeeze one in.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 22, 2011)

John Bredin said:


> My rebuttal, *PJRACER*, is:
> 
> 1) This proposal if carried to fruition* would eliminate that long-distance Amtrak experience you plan on having, not just the HSR plan you don't like.
> 
> ...


Excellent Post!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jan 22, 2011)

The reason that some of our representatives can get away with bashing Amtrak when they discuss Budget cuts is because huge numbers of Americans do not know that Amtrak exists or what the service is like. That includes our Senators and Representatives. Every member of Congess should be required to travel on Amtrak so they can honestly make statements about what is happening and not the vague and unsubstantaied comments like"no one rides passenger trains". They also need to see that the long distance trains provide more than the misconstrued "luxury cruise" service. They provide service to many smaller cities and towns, some of which have no other public transportation. There are many Americans who can't fly for medical reasons, don't want to drive long distances and find a long distance bus trip unacceptable. We need to get the word out to all Americans that trains are an important part of a well balanced transportation system and they do work. When I grew up in the 1950s, it was assumed any trip over 50 miles from home would be by train so the decision was which Railroad and then which train we would take. Many of or neigbors and friends had a similar philosphy. Most people knew the schedules of the major trains serving our communities or communities close by. One of the exciting things was going to the train station to see the trains come in even if we weren't traveling. As trains were discountinued, many people that rode trains regularly switched to other modes as schedules and connections of trains became less suitable. We need to change American minds about trains so they think like average people in other countries that have decent passenger train system, that taking the train is a real option. When you write to your Sanators, Congressment or State Officials, ask them when was the last time they traveled on Amtrak?


----------



## NETrainfan (Jan 22, 2011)

The topic of the importance of good passenger rail as a national security necessity is significant IMO. Wonder how posters on this thread feel about that issue?

Certainly, the subject was discussed after 9/11, but shouldn't it be a concern of all Congressional members, as an important method of alternative transportation, when considering funding for Amtrak?

"Except for in and out of Manhattan, Amtrak was still running strong. Amtrak was the big alternative mode of transportation used by stranded airline travelers. Trains were jam packed as everyone who was abandoned far from home struggled to get back to their loved ones." (quoted from battalion51)


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 22, 2011)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You can also, heaven forbid the suggestion, _raise_ taxes. Not just on the wealthy but on a whole.


Your post brings up an interesting point. However, I'd say that we don't need to raise tax rates on everybody. Instead, just change the tax structure to eliminate tax loopholes.

Here is a link to an article about Warren Buffet (one of the smartest investors and wealthiest people in the world) saying that the wealthy don't pay their fair share in taxes. Basically, he's saying that most extremely wealthy folks pay a lower percentage of their income to federal taxes than their secretaries do. In fact, he once bet some fellow billionaires $1 million if they could prove that they in fact did pay a higher percentage of their income to federal taxes than their secretaries. None of them took the bet.


----------



## Monorailfan1 (Jan 22, 2011)

> As for Mr. Monorailfan, please tell me what was "wrong" with what I said.


You said something similar to what I see a lot on these discussion - passenger rail vs. highways and airlines. But that's too simplified. 'Highways' and 'Passenger Rail' are not competiting for a limited slide of subsidies, it's the corporations in those three modes of transit that are. When talking government subsidies, its all about corporate lobbying, ala the defesne department. Grass roots lobbying? Meh.

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

So when the competition for transportation subsidies comes up, who is going to fight for Passenger Rail? Lots of companies are going to fight for highway and airline $, and they are going to leverage all the jobs that they create across the USA to maintain those subsidies. Corporations just don't have that much vested in passenger rail. They do in freight rail, but that is not nearly as subsidised.

I'm not saying I like this. I think it stinks. But earlier generations of Americans took the US transportation infrastructure down a different path, and the Industrial Complex shifted to support it, and it is so embedded now at some many levels, including corporate and government, that it will be very difficult to change.

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



> So here you go Mr. President, a lower-middle class citizen who is willing to pay MORE (or at least pay something) to the government if it means I can keep my police department and my portion of SSI/D and Medicare/aid.


ALC_Rail_Writer - how much more in taxes are you willing to spend for police, fire, and SSI/D? Why does it cost so much that taxes have to be raised to cover it? What the President is trying to do with healthcare is get its costs under control, hopefully to lessen the tax burden. Its an interesting step that many don't like.

How much are you willing to pay for Fire/Police? Are you willing to pay anything? Why does it cost so much? Why can they Police/Fire retire at much earlier ages, with full pensions and benefits, whereas private sector workers get nowhere near these benefits? Since when do Public Servants (that's what they are) deserve better than the taxpaying public they serve? That's called Benefits Apartheid - the public servants as a better class than those who pay them. I apparently bored GML and others on an earlier post about this, and that's too bad, because it impacts passenger rail.

Raising taxes only works when everyone else raises taxes, and the states around Illinois are now actively recruiting companies to move to their lower-taxed and lower cost of living states. My state sure is. So I think mid-term, this effort will backfire on Illinois. See California. And then the crushing state expenses will put Il into a corner, and hence why the Feds are studying a way to let States declare bankruptcy. And if this happens, where are the state's matching HSR and Amtrak funds going to come fron?

http://www.nytimes.c...jiAQjlJbdl956sA


----------



## anir dendroica (Jan 22, 2011)

Let me reiterate a point that has already been made: Republicans may be anti-rail in general but when cuts threaten services that their (Republican) constituents find important, they howl as loud as anyone else. Witness, for example, the fight by North Dakota congressmen to keep rail service to Devils Lake and Grand Forks:

http://www.devilslakejournal.com/features/x1682038653/Joe-Belford-on-top-of-the-battle-to-save-Amtrak-from-rising-water

Now imagine what they will say when rail service to the entire state is on the chopping block.

(The Empire Builder may be somewhat unique in this respect, in that folks along the high line perceive it as a needed service especially in the winter. I don't know if similar sentiment exists in more populated and temperate regions.)


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2011)

Monorailfan1 said:


> See California. And then the crushing state expenses will put Il into a corner, and hence why the Feds are studying a way to let States declare bankruptcy. And if this happens, where are the state's matching HSR and Amtrak funds going to come fron?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.c...jiAQjlJbdl956sA


Actually if states are allowed to declare bankruptcy and wipe off their debt, then eventually they will have a greater ability to fund everything, since the burden of interest payment on debt will be gone. Of course the state bond holders and state pensioners of today will be screwed. Works just like someone who has no ability to get any loan as a result of existing debt can spend 7 years in purgatory after declaring bankruptcy and then start off again with a clean slate. Even entire countries that have gone bankrupt have recovered nicely over the years if they have been able to change their behavior. So things are not really as black and white as they are made out to be.

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


----------



## AlanB (Jan 22, 2011)

jis said:


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


Precisely!

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

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


----------



## monorailfan1 (Jan 22, 2011)

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


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

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

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

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


----------



## George Harris (Jan 22, 2011)

anir dendroica said:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 22, 2011)

Monorailfan1 said:


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


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



Monorailfan1 said:


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


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



Monorailfan1 said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Ryan (Jan 22, 2011)

Monorailfan1 said:


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









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


----------



## monrailfan1 (Jan 22, 2011)

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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Ryan (Jan 23, 2011)

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


----------



## Shanghai (Jan 23, 2011)

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

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

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

* *

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

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

* *

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

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

* *

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


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2011)

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

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


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 23, 2011)

monrailfan1 said:


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


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



monrailfan1 said:


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


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



monrailfan1 said:


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


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



monrailfan1 said:


> As for the buzzwords, see the UK Daily Mail again.
> 
> Oh wait, let me guess, this is the UK, and is another trash papersource that is worthless....


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



jis said:


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


QFT.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

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


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2011)

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


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 25, 2011)

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


----------



## Ryan (Jan 25, 2011)

jis said:


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


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


----------



## George Harris (Jan 25, 2011)

Ryan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Thought some might find this article on _Understanding the Republican Party’s Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure_ an interesting read.
> ...


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

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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2011)

George Harris said:


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


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



George Harris said:


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


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


----------



## Ryan (Jan 25, 2011)

daxomni said:


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


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


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


Here's one a few posts up.



Guest said:


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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2011)

Ryan said:


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


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


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 25, 2011)

daxomni said:


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


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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


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


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



Green Maned Lion said:


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


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


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 25, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


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


As was David Gunn. Now back to the show.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 26, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Michael Bloomberg, formerly a republican,


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


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 26, 2011)

Steve4031 said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 26, 2011)

AlanB said:


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


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



VentureForth said:


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


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


----------



## amamba (Jan 26, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


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


----------



## abenm613 (Feb 12, 2011)

As for which lines would survive the complete cut of subsidies, only the Northeast corridor gets enough revenue to be considered operationally self-sufficient. But, given the fact the Amtrak has already survive the hostile Reagan administration (which kept zeroing it out from budget proposal every year during his second term), the so-call Reform Act (which was calling upon Amtrak to become self-sufficient by the end of 2002), the near-shutdown crisis in the summer of 2002, quite a number of anti-Amtrak's calls from the G.W.Bush administration, I believe it's safe to assume that Republicans (or, to be more precise, anti-rail conservative Republicans) will never get sufficient power in Congress to directly threaten Amtrak's survival. There will always be too many Democrats and moderate Republicans who will stand strong for protecting the existing Amtrak services. And even the conservative anti-rail Republicans, who are being sponsored by oil tycoons, would perhaps think twice before actively pulling a trigger on Amtrak's survival, realizing that the constituents may not forgive them the demise of the train service through their towns, no matter how generously their campaign is sponsored by oil tycoons. And, if anything, even if anti-rail sentiments among Republicans do increase, they may not even get a majority at the next election. So, there are too many odds against anti-rail forces (and in favor of Amtrak).

But, yes, adequate funding IS critical for keeping the nationwide Amtrak network intact (because only the corridor services, Northeast Corridor in particular, would be able to keep running without it); and, conversely, keeping the national network intact IS critical for maintaining the political support for Amtrak (because, after all, why would the legislators from Alabama or Texas support a railroad that only serves the Northeast). The existing Amtrak network is turning 40 this year, which means it has passed the test of time.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 12, 2011)

QFT: If Amtrak loses its highly profitable long distance trains and profitable midwestern Corridor trains, it would no longer be able to hide what a money pit the Northeast Corridor really is.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 13, 2011)

And if Amtrak were to get seriously cut and go away, the anti-Amtrak members would not be able to threaten to cut Amtrak in future years. Passenger Rail needs a dedicated funding source so they don't have to beg from Congress every year. Capital expenditure on new equipment is badly needed. Without new cars, many of the Superliner Is which started running in 1979 will be too worn out to meet required standards. Trains will likely be cut back to 3 times per week or some may be cut alogether due to lack of equipment. Once a train is discontinued, it is nearly impossible to bring it back. Write to your representatives and ask for permanant funding for Amtrak so it can operate like a business should!


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 13, 2011)

If you look at US Foeign aid, there are some socialist countries and dictatorships that receive what amounts to $1000 per person in US payments. (Foreign aid divided by population). If we can give foreigners $1000 per person in foreign aid then we can subsidize Amtrak to the tune of $32 per passenger.

Amtrak also creates jobs, serves the public interest, generates some payback in the form of income taxes, supports vendors and has environmental benefits. Foreign aid is mainly money thrown down the toilet and given to those that hate our country. When all is said and done, the combined middle East wars will have cost us a trillion or more of our tax money and some politicans are complaining about subsidies to Amtrak. As I've said many times before;we have a strange set of priorites in this country.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 14, 2011)

WICT106 said:


> I notice that they list the Amtrak subsidy by the passenger. Profit or loss in passenger transportation is measured by the Revenue Passenger Mile!
> 
> /end rant :angry2: :angry2:


It sounds like a lot to the subway rider whose probably paying $2; there are people locked in rooms who can't come out until they dream these ideas up!


----------



## afigg (Feb 14, 2011)

The White House proposed FY2012 budget is due to be released today, so the proposed Amtrak and HSIPR funding numbers for the upcoming FY will be available. But the budget process in the next month will be very messy since Congress is still working on the FY2011 budget, now 4 and 1/2 months into the fiscal year. Either there will be a last minute deal before the continuing resolutions run out or there will be a government shutdown. Given the hostility from many of the newly elected Republicans, my money is on a short lived shutdown.

Meanwhile, Amtrak put out a press release late last week about the January ridership numbers. Quoting: "The numbers are now in and January is the 15th straight month of ridership growth for Amtrak and also the best January on record with 2,126,429 passengers." The ridership growth for each month is in comparison to the same month in the previous year. Release is at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249221776733&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-019a_Amtrak_Sets_15_Month_Ridership_Record.pdf.

The release has the ridership numbers for January and the first 4 months of the FY (October to January) for each service. Overall ridership for the first 4 months is up 5.6%. Amtrak also posted the December 2010 Monthly report which has revenue numbers which show ticket revenue was up +12.0% overall for the first 3 months. Ticket revenue for the LD trains was up +14.0%, so the cost recovery for the LD trains should be improved.

If Amtrak can keep operating expenses from increasing too much - and get the states to sign their contracts for state support which may take a while until the states have dealt with their budgets for the year - Amtrak will be in better shape to handle cuts to the operating support subsidy that it would have been several years ago.


----------



## dan72 (Feb 14, 2011)

I came across and intersting article with the Washington Post. Although HSR is a big winner with Obama's proposal, this article mentions that Amtrak will lose its direct subsidy and need to compete for funding from a new trust fund. Whether it ultimately helps or hurts Amtrak is the question if this proposal were to become reality...

The blurb can be found here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/budget-2012-transportation.html

Dan


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 14, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> If you look at US Foeign aid, there are some socialist countries and dictatorships that receive what amounts to $1000 per person in US payments. (Foreign aid divided by population). If we can give foreigners $1000 per person in foreign aid then we can subsidize Amtrak to the tune of $32 per passenger.
> 
> Amtrak also creates jobs, serves the public interest, generates some payback in the form of income taxes, supports vendors and has environmental benefits. Foreign aid is mainly money thrown down the toilet and given to those that hate our country. When all is said and done, the combined middle East wars will have cost us a trillion or more of our tax money and some politicans are complaining about subsidies to Amtrak. As I've said many times before;we have a strange set of priorites in this country.


Mubarak is said to be worth about $70 billion... almost all of that has come from the U.S.... he's been in power for 30 years.

Imagine what Amtrak could have done with an extra $1.6 billion a year for the past 30 years.


----------



## afigg (Feb 14, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Mubarak is said to be worth about $70 billion... almost all of that has come from the U.S.... he's been in power for 30 years.
> 
> Imagine what Amtrak could have done with an extra $1.6 billion a year for the past 30 years.


The more reliable guess estimates for Mubarak's and his family wealth are in the $5 billion range. He and his circle of cronies may have become incredibly corrupt, but Mubarak's couldn't keep all the graft to himself.

$1.6 billion a year in additional sustained capital funding for Amtrak over the past 15-20 years, would have gotten the NEC to a state of good repair with much better trip times, greater capacity and higher ridership. Then the HSR funding could focus on building HSR and improved intercity rail in California, the Southeast, Florida, the mid-West, and the Pacific NW. But the $1.6 billion to Egypt is part and parcel of our very large "hidden" subsidy for oil imports.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 14, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> QFT: If Amtrak loses its highly profitable long distance trains and profitable midwestern Corridor trains, it would no longer be able to hide what a money pit the Northeast Corridor really is.


*Absolutely correct, GML!!*

The Northeast Corridor has exactly what you do not want in a transportation system: Short hauls, high terminal costs, high operating cost infrastructure, many major structures and facilities that are near life-expired, etc., etc.


----------



## volkris (Feb 15, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> QFT: If Amtrak loses its highly profitable long distance trains and profitable midwestern Corridor trains, it would no longer be able to hide what a money pit the Northeast Corridor really is.


For some definition of "highly profitable"...

Reminds me of the old joke that 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.

In the end there's no way around it: all of Amtrak is a money pit in that there is no money coming out of it. It might be the prettiest, most socially progressive money pit the world has ever seen, but it's still a money pit.

Pointing out that one part of the pit is a bit shallower than another doesn't exactly say much.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 15, 2011)

Amtrak is, for the nation, a profitable enterprise. That its ROI does not show on its balance sheet allows idiots to make comments such as Volkris's.


----------



## volkris (Feb 16, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak is, for the nation, a profitable enterprise. That its ROI does not show on its balance sheet allows idiots to make comments such as Volkris's.


When you're talking about money and the amount of money various routes lose, it's apples and oranges to jump to notions of profit that aren't based on the balance sheets.

It's like trying to fill a budget deficit with the appropriate number of hugs.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 16, 2011)

Fire stations don't show a profit on their balance sheets.

Neither do schools.

Nor roads.

Nor does the military.

Nor the Police.

Better go ahead and shut the entire thing down, then.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 16, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Fire stations don't show a profit on their balance sheets.
> 
> Neither do schools.
> 
> ...


this.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 16, 2011)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak is, for the nation, a profitable enterprise. That its ROI does not show on its balance sheet allows idiots to make comments such as Volkris's.
> ...


The world does not translate to dollars and cents. Things are done for the benefit of the nation, improve our economy, and make our nation more functional. Without them we would not function. The only reason you can make even a remote judgement about roads not requiring a subsidy is that they have a dedicated funding source- or rather, several of them.

Amtrak provides us with benefits to our nation that are important. Some of them, through diligent search, can be traced to dollars. Those dollars are more than we put into the operation, but do not show on Amtrak's balance sheet. Some benefits are priceless, but do not show up on Amtrak's balance sheet, either.

To ignore these is to be a child. Or the euphemistic word for adult child, Libertarian.


----------



## jis (Feb 16, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


+1. Well stated GML!


----------



## AlanB (Feb 16, 2011)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


And despite those dedicated funding sources, the roads still do get subsidies anyhow!


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 16, 2011)

I make my comments as a political independent. I am no more a Socialist than I am a tool of the bankers, financial elite & the corporatists.

So here is an independent opinion.

The politicans have spent us into bankruptsy so the USA must learn to live within its means. Some programs will undoubtedly be cut but what concerns me is the continual attack on Amtrak that is a tiny portion (2-3%) of the total transportation budget. Cutting Amtrak to balance the budget is like trying to put out a house fire with a glass of water

As pointed out no division of government makes money or is self sufficient. Whether it be the military, CIA,NSA, FBI,EPA, FDA, IRS, USPS, TSA, they all cost money to run. The can all be called money pits in one form or another. Talk about a true moeny pit; what about all the billions of US foreign aid that goes to support tyrannical dictators. Do some research on *the School of the Americas *at FT Benning Georgia and read how we train foreign military dictators to control their people and to be made into US puppets. Then we give them billions to have them do our bidding. We give away our money to "our friends" so we pick on Amtrak as the money waster.

Point is that we waste billions of the taxpayers money on wars and un-necessary programs. The government institutions that are supported by our tax money, that serve the public interest, should be protected and maintained. I want my tax money used for the betterment of the American people and not to fight wars that we will never win, and not to fund dictators that end up living wealthy on our tax money.

It may sound like a load of money but if Amtrak had only a $2 billion annual budget, some really good things could result. We would have the money but we chose to spend it unwisely on other things.

A national passenger rail system is not only vital to help move people from one place to another, it is also vital for the national defense.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 16, 2011)

Not to suggest that foreign aid is all money well spent, or that it shouldn't face scrutiny and cuts, but it is not as large a part of the federal budget as many suggest. Yes, it is significantly larger than Amtrak's federal funding. The last numbers I saw were something on the order of $17 billion a year for foreign aid.


----------



## volkris (Feb 17, 2011)

That's right: the benefits and value of Amtrak cannot be translated into dollars and cents, so let's not embark upon the halfhearted attempts to do so. Let's not talk about giant profits of one route versus others, or about the cost per passenger mile being a reason to fund the system. Such arguments are non-starters, and yet they're paraded about often enough to actually do harm to the cause of expansion of rail in the country. After all, if your argument in support is faulty then your whole case if made to look bad.

Similarly, though, it's childish to stomp one's feet saying that rail is a absolutely, unquestionably positive thing for the country. It's not. Rail, other services, has value for some people and no value for others. It's valued differently by different people. And there's nothing wrong with those people who don't see value in rail just as there's nothing wrong with people who don't particularly care for ice cream. It's a personal opinion made by each individual.

So our political systems sort through peoples' valuations to decide what the country as a whole wants to do, and sometimes (probably often) the result will not be in line with your individual opinions and valuations.

The way forward for rail is to improve its value to the individuals living in the country to the tipping point where they believe it's a worthwhile use of tax dollars. We're not at that point now. But one thing that's definitely not going to get us there is false monetary arguments and childish footstomping that tries to force pro-rail opinions on everyone.

Reaching for your neighbor's wallet to pay for your personal causes is just going to **** your neighbor off at you AND the cause.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 17, 2011)

You can't do this:



volkris said:


> The way forward for rail is to improve its value to the individuals living in the country to the tipping point where they believe it's a worthwhile use of tax dollars.


Without doing this:



> Reaching for your neighbor's wallet to pay


The rest of your post is just the typical non-reality based tripe of the economic libertarian.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 17, 2011)

volkris said:


> Similarly, though, it's childish to stomp one's feet saying that rail is a absolutely, unquestionably positive thing for the country. It's not. Rail, other services, has value for some people and no value for others. It's valued differently by different people. And there's nothing wrong with those people who don't see value in rail just as there's nothing wrong with people who don't particularly care for ice cream. It's a personal opinion made by each individual.


No, rail has value for everyone. The problem is that many simply don't realize that; they equate value with "would they ride it." But everyone in this country gains value by the rail that is currently in use. They gain value by having fewer people in front of them when they drive down a road/highway. They gain value by having less expense for the roads. They gain value by having the cheaper subsidies for trains instead of the more expensive subsidies for buses.



volkris said:


> Reaching for your neighbor's wallet to pay for your personal causes is just going to **** your neighbor off at you AND the cause.


So what you're saying is that it's ok for those in favor of roads to reach for my wallet to pay for their personal cause, but it's not ok for me to ask the same in return?


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm a driver. I LOVE to drive.. I find it engaging and relaxing at the same time. Every time Amtrak takes some texting idiot driving their beige imported appliance off the road, it has provided a valuable service to me without me ever buying a ticket.


----------



## volkris (Feb 17, 2011)

AlanB said:


> No, rail has value for everyone. The problem is that many simply don't realize that; they equate value with "would they ride it." But everyone in this country gains value by the rail that is currently in use. They gain value by having fewer people in front of them when they drive down a road/highway. They gain value by having less expense for the roads. They gain value by having the cheaper subsidies for trains instead of the more expensive subsidies for buses.


Rail is not a panacea for traffic. A whole lot of people wouldn't be helped in the slightest by that effect on the roadways.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 17, 2011)

volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > No, rail has value for everyone. The problem is that many simply don't realize that; they equate value with "would they ride it." But everyone in this country gains value by the rail that is currently in use. They gain value by having fewer people in front of them when they drive down a road/highway. They gain value by having less expense for the roads. They gain value by having the cheaper subsidies for trains instead of the more expensive subsidies for buses.
> ...


Rail is most certainly a panacea for traffic, when properly utilized. For example, the LIRR moves more people into NYC's Penn Station during the 4 hour morning rush hour than the 7 lanes of highway through Queens can move into Manhattan. Take away the LIRR and I wouldn't be able move my car during rush hour in Queens.

Now I'll grant that's a unique situation, but the simple reality is that unless you don't ever visit or even get near any of our cities with a population of 100,000 or more, you would still benefit from reduced traffic if you are driving near a city with rail. And I'd bet that maybe 10% or less of the population can make such a claim that they don't visit any city of size.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 17, 2011)

Volkris is entitled to express his opinion and most of probably will disagree with it.

If he doesn't want money spent on Amtrak, first lets address the bigger costs- $15 billion that the government spends to maintain the airports for the benefit of the private airline companies ( not including TSA costs) and $40 billion for the roads/highways and what about the billions to support government agencies? How about the $14 billion in earmarks, and the $60 billion spent on foreign wars and the $40 billion in foreign aid? I maintain that Amtrak, that costs only 2-3% of the total transportation budget is a good buy. It offers something of value to the American people, especially when the price of oil climbs to record levels. I predict that ridership will again be up for the third consecuative year. If Vokris is disappointed that Amtrak needs subsidies to operate it must be remembered that many other goverment services cost far more.

This opinion comes from someone independent who is neither a Socialist, liberal Democrat, or a big business Republican.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 17, 2011)

dlagrua said:


> Volkris is entitled to express his opinion and most of probably will disagree with it.


Yes, but he's not entitled to his own facts.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2011)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Volkris is entitled to express his opinion and most of probably will disagree with it.
> ...


Specially when they are of the conveniently manufactured kind


----------

