# Cong. John Mica lost House, considered for transportation secretary



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 8, 2016)

I know that this is not a political site. And not much need to discuss this topic.

But I expect that members will be interested in the news that Amtrak won't have John Mica to kick it around any more.


----------



## The Chief (Nov 8, 2016)

Good luck catchin' a train going home to Florida, Mr. ex-Chairman.

House Transportation Committee.

https://t.co/o1Ci7TEgi7

https://t.co/4y8GZeNdyZ

https://t.co/9QKIbyEJFw


----------



## TinCan782 (Nov 8, 2016)

"Ding dong, the witch is dead"


----------



## Ziv (Nov 8, 2016)

I am pretty conservative, and I have to admit I was happy to see that Mica will probably lose. It will be interesting to see what happens next.


----------



## AmtrakLKL (Nov 8, 2016)

So we've got one bit of good news out of Florida tonight...


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 8, 2016)

Roll out those new diners! Seriously, I'm not sure how Amtrak will fare under a new administration, but it has lost its biggest critic in Congress.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Nov 9, 2016)

With Mica out and President-Elect Trump in, it will be an amazing time for Amtrak as he has made infrastructure rebuilding a key task.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2016)

I think Mica was the only one who was obsessed about food pricing, so maybe we can go back to rational commercial operations when it comes to Amtrak food?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Nov 9, 2016)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> With Mica out and President-Elect Trump in, it will be an amazing time for Amtrak as he has made infrastructure rebuilding a key task.


I hope you're right, but I am a little concerned with the complete Republican government. Maybe with Trump's support, he can sway some in Congress to support increased funding.


----------



## Palmetto (Nov 9, 2016)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> With Mica out and President-Elect Trump in, it will be an amazing time for Amtrak as he has made infrastructure rebuilding a key task.


That is wonderful as long as "infrastructure" does not equal "roads and bridges only".


----------



## pennyk (Nov 9, 2016)

Please keep comments in this thread on the topic of John Mica's Congressional race. Thank you.


----------



## OBS (Nov 9, 2016)

A free dining car meal for everyone!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 9, 2016)

Bill Shuster won reelection handily so I'm not sure why we're so excited about John Mica being replaced. Not to mention the humongous elephant in the room that we're not allowed to discuss. Looks as though Amtrak Unlimited is every bit as irrationally exuberant today as it has ever been.


----------



## tommylicious (Nov 9, 2016)

WIth this sweep of government, Amtrak could likely be no more.


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 9, 2016)

AU is not stifling your right to discuss the election results at all.

Since this forum is Amtrak related, and Mica was a strong opponent of Amtrak, this is Amtrak related. But you are free to discuss any election results or other issues.

If it is not directly Amtrak related, please feel free to discuss it in the "Random Discussion" forum. Thank you.


----------



## dlagrua (Nov 9, 2016)

I fail to see why the subject of Amtrak is sometimes judged as a partisan issue. Amtrak is there to serve the American people. Serving the American people should be in the interest of both parties. I just never understood where John Mica's interests were and I am glad that he is gone. The populist president elect must now be held to his promise to rebuild our passenger rail infrastructure.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 9, 2016)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> With Mica out and President-Elect Trump in, it will be an amazing time for Amtrak as he has made infrastructure rebuilding a key task.


Or he could privatize the NEC, and the rest of the system out. I'm just not sure which direction the national system might go. At least it is good to know that the CA corridor trains are shielded from anything that goes on nationally.


----------



## A Voice (Nov 9, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Bill Shuster won reelection handily so I'm not sure why we're so excited about John Mica being replaced. Not to mention the humongous elephant in the room that we're not allowed to discuss. Looks as though Amtrak Unlimited is every bit as irrationally exuberant today as it has ever been.


Who is Bill Shuster? Never heard of him; Has he been as much an outspoken and unreasonable critic of Amtrak as John Mica?



MikefromCrete said:


> Roll out those new diners! Seriously, I'm not sure how Amtrak will fare under a new administration, but it has lost its biggest critic in Congress.


Indeed. Now we'll see how much influence Mr. Mica really had. He technically had no more power (committee assignment aside, perhaps) than the most junior member, but again he did have influence that came with his position. Conspiracy theories abound about his having 'direct contact' with Amtrak executives; If that holds even a shred of truth, he had greatly overstepped his bounds.



tommylicious said:


> WIth this sweep of government, Amtrak could likely be no more.


No. Amtrak's support has always been in Congress, even with the same party holding the Presidency and both houses.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Nov 9, 2016)

tommylicious said:


> WIth this sweep of government, Amtrak could likely be no more.


+1


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Nov 9, 2016)

dlagrua said:


> I fail to see why the subject of Amtrak is sometimes judged as a partisan issue. Amtrak is there to serve the American people. Serving the American people should be in the interest of both parties. I just never understood where John Mica's interests were and I am glad that he is gone. The populist president elect must now be held to his promise to rebuild our passenger rail infrastructure.


Or the "angry American" people who helped elect Trump, view Amtrak as a special-interest folly, and it will be killed off quickly (faster than Obama-care).


----------



## A Voice (Nov 9, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I fail to see why the subject of Amtrak is sometimes judged as a partisan issue. Amtrak is there to serve the American people. Serving the American people should be in the interest of both parties. I just never understood where John Mica's interests were and I am glad that he is gone. The populist president elect must now be held to his promise to rebuild our passenger rail infrastructure.
> ...


Again,* no*.

I understand that some people here may be upset their candidate lost, but can we please stop with the nonsense?


----------



## CoachSlumber (Nov 9, 2016)

Good that Mica is gone but Amtrak could be toast. He was not alone in his antipathy for it. Trump is likely to go along with the fairly tale that Amtrak could be "sold" and run privately. But there is still the factor of all the Republican districts and states that Amtrak routes run through.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Nov 9, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Why no?

I don't see even a slightest hint that anyone who's now headed to Washington, has any interest at all in Amtrak. The talk about transit and infrastructure has never mentioned Amtrak by name (not like there are too many different LD train companies in America to remember all their names).

Its total fantasy to think that Amtrak has gotten any kind of clear-track-ahead signal by anyone.


----------



## west point (Nov 9, 2016)

Since Trump appears to not have gotten as many popular votes as opponent he may know that he has to work for all Americans ?


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 9, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > Cho Cho Charlie said:
> ...


It is also by the very nature of your argument that Amtrak might be left alone since they don't quite know what it is and does.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 9, 2016)

A Voice said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Shuster won reelection handily so I'm not sure why we're so excited about John Mica being replaced. Not to mention the humongous elephant in the room that we're not allowed to discuss. Looks as though Amtrak Unlimited is every bit as irrationally exuberant today as it has ever been.
> ...


Bill Shuster replaced John Mica as Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman in the 113th Congress back in 2013. Bill Shuster introduced The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, also known as PRRIA (H.R. 749), that requires Amtrak to reverse food and beverage losses within five years.



CCC1007 said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > A Voice said:
> ...


Except that they seem to be acutely aware that Obama supported it and that seems to be more than enough to hate/halt/kill it in today's GOP.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 9, 2016)

After the Amtrak accident near Philadelphia, Trump tweeted, " The only one to fix the infrastructure of our country is me - roads, airports, bridges. I know how to build, pols only know how to talk! "

So he seems to have been thinking that he was going to "fix" the problem that caused the accident, i.e. the lack of PTC, perhaps. I don't think a Manhattan person is going to be against rail, it plays too big a role in a New Yorkers life. 

Could he be thinking of privatizing the NEC and spinning off the rest? Maybe, but I doubt it.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 9, 2016)

Any infrastructure spending bill, assuming it happens, is more likely to pass under a president from the same party: that's the nature of the beast.

It will be Amtrak and their friends job to lobby for a piece of the pie in what looks to be a wide open field, as nobody was planning on what just happened.

Federal funding for the California HSR is likely dead, but I doubt Amtrak will be. There is too much local support across the country in both parties. And even Mica supported passenger rail in Florida.


----------



## SP&S (Nov 9, 2016)

What is that old supposedly Chinese curse - _May you live in interesting times_? Well, welcome to interesting times.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 9, 2016)

Carolina Special said:


> It will be Amtrak and their friends job to lobby for a piece of the pie in what looks to be a wide open field, as nobody was planning on what just happened.


Good point. Now that green science is out and patriotic pollution is back in vogue perhaps Amtrak can find a coal company to pair up with and help fund the development of a new generation of passenger rail locomotives which would appeal to the Oracle of Appalachia.


----------



## Albo5000 (Nov 9, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Carolina Special said:
> 
> 
> > It will be Amtrak and their friends job to lobby for a piece of the pie in what looks to be a wide open field, as nobody was planning on what just happened.
> ...


But wont it all be clean coal?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 9, 2016)

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


----------



## NorthShore (Nov 9, 2016)

When even the ranking Democratic Congressman on the transportation committee, a Chicagoan (and my district's representative) does not seem to understand or appreciate the importance of long distance rail service, I'm not extremely excited about the possibilities. At least he is committed to infrastructure improvements and the better development of a Midwest High Speed Rail corridor. Perhaps such is where one focus will shift. But, unfortunately, it isn't sexy to fund new railcars or offer meal service subsidies. An elected official can't stand in front of cameras championing how he brings back bacon for "jobs" and infrastructure improvements to pay back contractors that will kick back to one's campaign fund when it doesn't so clearly directly benefit a grasp on political power, um I mean the home district.....even if the passenger rail service it does assist immensely supports the economy, jobs, and local taxes for its constituents and their city.


----------



## neroden (Nov 10, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > Devil's Advocate said:
> ...


Shuster did not write that provision, however. That was Mica's pet provision.


----------



## neroden (Nov 10, 2016)

SP&S said:


> What is that old supposedly Chinese curse - _May you live in interesting times_? Well, welcome to interesting times.


It's been "interesting" in the US since the President was selected by a 5-4 vote of unelected judges, two of whom had conflicts of interest, back in 2000. That was something I *never* thought I'd see happen.

This was just an election.


----------



## neroden (Nov 10, 2016)

A Voice said:


> tommylicious said:
> 
> 
> > WIth this sweep of government, Amtrak could likely be no more.
> ...


Amtrak somehow survived the Bush Jr. years, when Bush proposed zeroing out Amtrak *every single year*, and had Republican control of both houses of Congress for six years. On top of that, Amtrak had gotten into a financial mess under Downs, which had been made worse under Warrington. Somehow Congress kept providing funding.

I think Amtrak is in a much safer position right now than it was in 2000.


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 10, 2016)

As a conservative, I disagreed with Mica's tactics. I line up more Trumpian with his assessment of our passenger rail infrastructure is so far behind other countries. Unfortunately, most want to attack the problem with just throwing more money at the problem. I think California can benefit from high speed rail, but are they and the feds willing to address the problems of enormously costly regulations requiring so many "environmental impact" studies, etc. that just serve to pad pockets?

I have been saddened by the overall structure of Amtrak for many years now. It is stuck in a time warp for those of us outside of corridors. I'm ready for a radical makeover.

Labor hamstrings it with costs.

Congress hamstrings it with chronic underfunding.

Freight railroads destroy on time performance.

Onboard service is below the expectation for the price.

And Amtrak appears to have some institutional/corporate issues that there is a refusal to change (accounting, middle management, etc.)

It's time for fresh ideas and a new approach.


----------



## neroden (Nov 10, 2016)

The core EIS regulations are pretty reasonable honestly. Though the 4(f) rules about never ever displacing parkland are overkill, and need to be relaxed (in favor of being allowed to make substitute parkland). EISes are great. If done well, they give a comprehensive and clear overview of what the project will do, what risks it poses to nature and humans, and how to address those risks. I've read a lot of them, they're super useful documents for the public, and they can be done quite quickly when there are no litigious jerks trying to find excuses to sue.

The Buy America regulations are a disaster.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2016)

As I said in a message to a friend last night, "The Toupee is down. Repeat, The Toupee is down."

I will say that one thing we might see (and I'm actually somewhat optimistic about this possibility) would be Trump taking an axe to the EIS process (and indeed invoking federal preemption in some fashion to run over CA's EIS processes in the future). Basically, see this as construction lobby vs consulting firm lobby. Trump seems to fall into the former's camp given his campaign tacks (and I suspect he'd _love_ to take a bat to some NIMBYs given the Television City affair). Making ten thousand construction jobs at the cost of perhaps a few hundred consultants seems like a palatable trade.

[Edit: To clarify, I see two points of attack here. One is the time required to make a study happen. Knocking this down by 50% would be reasonable (e.g. shooting for a two-year cycle instead of 3-4 years). The other is reducing the number of "points of attack" for lawsuits and derailing objections, which is where stuff often goes bad. Something which merely raised the burden for "stop the project" lawsuits (the Purple Line shrimp comes to mind, as does the FEC archaeology case) would go a long way. Another thing would be to make it easier to simply force the suits into "money fights" (e.g. only allow someone to seek compensation rather than an injunction if they're complaining about, say, property value impact).]

I really don't see him zeroing out the Amtrak budget in a proposal (nor do I see such a proposal, if made, going anywhere...such proposals went basically nowhere earlier this year, arguably under a more hostile climate). I also see Obama _not_ being on the stage as a good thing since it pulls a lightning rod out of circulation for the GOP at the moment. It won't be _Obama's_ stuff, it'll be _Trump's _stuff...but on this front it would be_ really _odd to see a bunch of Dems try to kill a significant (if lower-salience) priority for their party. If anything, I could see him pushing a plan which would provide some limited support to CAHSR in exchange for most of the money going elsewhere.

My gut says that Wick Moorman (a highly competent railroad executive) being in charge of Amtrak means that the head of Amtrak will be able to talk the right language with Trump's people.

Also, one thing to consider positively? Generally speaking, Trump _did not care_ about the party platform. Some schmuck threw in a line about Amtrak being a "very expensive railroad", but that thing was basically thrown on everyone's seats about four hours before the vote amid a pile of other stuff and passed amid no debate. It represents the views, in essence, of a committee of _perhaps _100 people and it _did not_ mention defunding Amtrak (the most offensive item was a line on food service).

Amtrak aside, I could also see him slamming through some RRIF loans to folks like FEC/AAF. I mean, hell, the money's already there...$30-35bn (IIRC) can go a _long_ frakking way towards some projects and he wouldn't even need Congress to sign off on it. One shenanigan I'd pull in his shoes if I wanted to make this happen? Allow applicants to use projected government subsidies to help secure the loan and then if the loans go bad, it can rhetorically become _Congress's_ fault. Also slip some language in exempting these loans from full NEPA reviews.

Anyhow, I think there are reasons to be optimistic, not least being where Trump's instincts seem to lie.


----------



## neroden (Nov 10, 2016)

Anderson said:


> As I said in a message to a friend last night, "The Toupee is down. Repeat, The Toupee is down."
> 
> I will say that one thing we might see (and I'm actually somewhat optimistic about this possibility) would be Trump taking an axe to the EIS process (and indeed invoking federal preemption in some fashion to run over CA's EIS processes in the future). Basically, see this as construction lobby vs consulting firm lobby. Trump seems to fall into the former's camp given his campaign tacks (and I suspect he'd _love_ to take a bat to some NIMBYs given the Television City affair). Making ten thousand construction jobs at the cost of perhaps a few hundred consultants seems like a palatable trade.
> 
> [Edit: To clarify, I see two points of attack here. One is the time required to make a study happen. Knocking this down by 50% would be reasonable (e.g. shooting for a two-year cycle instead of 3-4 years). The other is reducing the number of "points of attack" for lawsuits and derailing objections, which is where stuff often goes bad. Something which merely raised the burden for "stop the project" lawsuits (the Purple Line shrimp comes to mind, as does the FEC archaeology case) would go a long way. Another thing would be to make it easier to simply force the suits into "money fights" (e.g. only allow someone to seek compensation rather than an injunction if they're complaining about, say, property value impact).]


I strongly believe that injunctions should be reserved for irreparable environmental damage, like driving endangered species extinct. I'd include demolishing people's houses as a category which you should be able to get an injunction for, if you can prove that the EIS did not analyze the risks right. And chopping down mature trees. But if you're claiming something dumb like noise or parking or property value or whatever, it should be thrown into money damages immediately. And if you're making an archaeology claim, you'd better have an archaeologist to testify. The Purple Line shrimp case should have been thrown out as frivolous as the state had already looked for the shrimp and found that they were not there, and the complainants didn't have any contrary evidence.
The best lawsuits I've seen are basically "You lied about the project" suits against EISes, like the one Milwaukee won against a giant highway project, and those should still be valid.

(Also, California does seem to have a particularly problematic EIS system compared to the rest of the country, but the federal government can't really change that!)


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2016)

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > As I said in a message to a friend last night, "The Toupee is down. Repeat, The Toupee is down."
> ...


I'll generally agree, though in the houses cases (or similar) I'd still want a substantial error to be required as part of the complaint in order to get such an injunction (and this brings up another type of issue, namely "demanding something be reconsidered which likely would not have impacted the end result").

With archaeology, I'd also suggest that it might be worth considering limits on what they can seek to do, even _with_ evidence. Delaying a project for six months and conducting an excavation is probably reasonable (this actually happened in Williamsburg when they were widening 199: They completed other portions of the project first, did a dig, and then finished the project after they had found what they could find in the time they were given), as is pressing for another alternative to be selected if practical. However, the mere _possible_ presence of incidental artifacts which would at best contribute a cursory amount of understanding to ancient hunter-gatherer cultures should not be grounds to stop something in its tracks (which was the argument in the AAF case...it basically amounted to "but we might find an arrowhead while putting a second track back in place" if I recall the suit properly).

Basically what I want to see is an end to foot-dragging suits.

As to CA (in particular), I do have to wonder whether or not some degree of federal preemption couldn't be brought to bear under a combination of the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause. Granted, this would be more likely if it were happening somewhere like Delaware or Indiana and the project was a pass-through project in present form (e.g. Michigan was willing to take up the tab on Porter and NS/CSX were cooperating but Indiana was obstructing them from being able to complete the project and get to Chicago).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 10, 2016)

California is the one and only state legally allowed to implement stricter than federal environmental protections. Apparently even that is one too many.



neroden said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> > A Voice said:
> ...


...And now Shuster is in charge of defending and enforcing it as a core provision of a bill he personally introduced.


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 10, 2016)

neroden said:


> . I've read a lot of them, they're super useful documents for the public, and they can be done quite quickly when there are no litigious jerks trying to find excuses to sue.
> 
> The Buy America regulations are a disaster.


I think the time frame it takes to complete them are inhibitors to success. And the lawsuits...well......they are a problem. I also, as conservative as I am, do not think that "Buy America" is smart. It ought to be "buy the best".


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 10, 2016)

I think overall, the obstructionist style Republicans may have to eat some crow before this is all over with.

I'm quite optimistic that Trump and the Congress will push through a more aggressive pro-rail policy than any prior Republican or Democrat administration.

We all know on here that passenger rail requires subsidies. It always will. It just doesn't touch enough people in a reliable, comfortable way. Long Distance service needs minimal twice daily service to be a truly effective transportation alternative in my book. Coast Starlight and the NYC/DC-CHI routes should be the first to be doubled or tripled in my book. That requires money.

BUT, the onboard product for sleeper services/dining really should be wrestled away from AMTRAK proper. I'd even be happy for a wholly owned subsidiary of AMTRAK, if that is possible, to operate the onboard product with a different labor/commissary/comfort collection of offerings and cost structure.

Understandably to a degree, AMTRAK has been a pariah and punching bag that was always hamstrung. The establishment type republicans have been shoved to the side and are now owed nothing.

Again, with new President of Amtrak and a new President of the US (both business minded and business backgrounds who love to succeed), let's see how they roll!


----------



## jis (Nov 10, 2016)

Suffice it to say that usually the President of the US does not have a whole heck of a lot of influence on Amtrak, mostly by omission. They seldom exercise even the control they are able to have, and let things just bungle along. However, it would be interesting to see what President Trump proposes in his first bu7dget. That will give a good indication of where his administration stands. Of course what Congress will do is a different matter. I have been listening to PAC calls from various PACs and there are very few that think the relationship between the President and Congress will be all cordial bonhomie.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 10, 2016)

jis said:


> Suffice *it* to say that usually the President of the US does not have a whole heck of a lot of influence on Amtrak, mostly by omission. They seldom exercise even the control they are able to have, and let things just bungle along. However, it would be interesting to see what President Trump proposes in his first bu7dget. That will give a good indication of where his administration stands. Of course what Congress will do is a different matter. I have been listening to PAC calls from various PACs and there are very few that think the relationship between the President and Congress will be all cordial bonhomie.


Cheerful cooperation? Maybe not. Aligned in lock step against anything and everything that Obama has ever requested, instructed, enacted, or supported? Absoeffenlutely. Relaxed cheeriness isn't what the GOP is really about anyhow. Nearly all of their biggest and brightest proposals involve unwinding and/or discarding someone else's ideas. I've only seen Trump spontaneously laugh once, at a joke about Hillary being hit by a car, so I wouldn't expect much in the way of cheerful leadership from him or McConnell or Ryan or whoever else ends up in control over the House.


----------



## Karl1459 (Nov 10, 2016)

CoachSlumber said:


> Good that Mica is gone but Amtrak could be toast. He was not alone in his antipathy for it. Trump is likely to go along with the fairly tale that Amtrak could be "sold" and run privately. But there is still the factor of all the Republican districts and states that Amtrak routes run through.


It all depends on how you define "profit". If a true "private" company was to run Amtrak with a contract for services to run x amount of train service, for y billion dollars a year, then if there was money left over at the end of the year it would be a "profit". The fiction is national rail passenger service can operate without government support, just as highways and air passenger service require government support. An argument could be made that if Amtrak were to run "under budget" that that would represent "profit".

The enticing thought is this could be a mult-year contract which would make capital investment a possibility.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 10, 2016)

So how do you folks think a Trump Administration would impact Amtrak's Northeast Corridor?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 10, 2016)

Andrew said:


> So how do you folks think a Trump Administration would impact Amtrak's Northeast Corridor?


Best guess: Talk about "Privatization", then defer to the desires of the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer D-NY and the other Washington and New York Big Wigs who are the Core Riders that make Acela FC Amtrak's Money Cow!


----------



## trainviews (Nov 11, 2016)

I honestly think all bets are off. Trump has been tweeting one thing one day and the opposite the other. Neither facts, knowledge nor his own previous statements seem to matter much to him. Economywise his proposals for tax cuts and spending doesn't add up at all. He likes big shiny things better than mundane people stuff like health care, but whether it's going to be roads or rails, there's no clue (he might be a New Yorker, but I doubt he has been in a train for many, many years, if ever). So which are going to become reality?

But I agree Congress will matter more, and here two things will determine the outcome: How long and forcefully Obamahate will linger. If we see an all out "erase everything" rampage, anything transit might get killed, as Obama tried to push it, even if unsuccessful, at least since 2010. The other is how the powerstruggle within the Republican caucus will play out. There's definately an "any government spending, especially near any large cities is bad"-wing, and they probably smell blood. We might see a congress which is every bit as paralyzed as the current one, where internal Republican infighting has been as much the cause as lack of bipartisanship. Public transport might end up collateral damage in that fight.

Or maybe not. But there is at least as much cause for pessimism as for optimism. There's a potential upside not seen since the stimulus in 2008-10, but in contrary to that period there's also a real danger of total slash and burn. Most likely scenario: Amtrak will fly under the radar and continue slogging along without any of the fundamental problems getting solved.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2016)

Thing to look out for is what happens in the '18 appropriations. Remainder of '17 or at least first 3 Q of '17 will most likely be under the CR that will be adopted by the lame duck session of Congress.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 11, 2016)

trainviews said:


> I honestly think all bets are off. Trump has been tweeting one thing one day and the opposite the other. Neither facts, knowledge nor his own previous statements seem to matter much to him. Economywise his proposals for tax cuts and spending doesn't add up at all. He likes big shiny things better than mundane people stuff like health care, but whether it's going to be roads or rails, there's no clue (he might be a New Yorker, but I doubt he has been in a train for many, many years, if ever). So which are going to become reality?
> 
> But I agree Congress will matter more, and here two things will determine the outcome: How long and forcefully Obamahate will linger. If we see an all out "erase everything" rampage, anything transit might get killed, as Obama tried to push it, even if unsuccessful, at least since 2010. The other is how the powerstruggle within the Republican caucus will play out. There's definately an "any government spending, especially near any large cities is bad"-wing, and they probably smell blood. We might see a congress which is every bit as paralyzed as the current one, where internal Republican infighting has been as much the cause as lack of bipartisanship. Public transport might end up collateral damage in that fight.
> 
> ...


----------



## tommylicious (Nov 11, 2016)

Pretty sure Amtrak is now more moribund than ever with the current sweep of government. Like, as in total shut down is more likely than ever. Freight companies are salivating.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 11, 2016)

I just want to remind everyone that Amtrak has had similar circumstances before and survived, such as the budget crisis of 2002. Amtrak may be different but it should keep going.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2016)

People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 11, 2016)

jis said:


> People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like


Not to mention the Nixon/Kissinger nightmares and the Cheney era!


----------



## Manny T (Nov 11, 2016)

Not sure why people are speculating on the future of Amtrak. We have a (nominally) Republican president-elect and the House and Senate have Republican majorities.

The GOP told us what they want for Amtrak in their 2016 platform (p. 5). Here is their vision of passenger rail in the US:

"Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country. We reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California’s high-speed train to nowhere."


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2016)

I suppose mainly because parties seldom do much with the platform once they get elected. It is really hard to tell what will happen. Similar language has been in platforms for a while now. In the Reagan David Stockman tried to implement the platform for two years and then he was basically sidelined and life went on as before. People who write the platform don;t necessarily have much control over what Congress will actually do.


----------



## A Voice (Nov 11, 2016)

jis said:


> People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like


I don't think we've ever come as close to losing Amtrak as we did during the initial years of the Reagan Administration.....which eventually (and wisely) gave up trying to kill the program and let Amtrak live in peace. Don Phillips, of Trains magazine and (then) the Washington Post, commented that for a time in Congress, Amtrak was dead.

If the company survived those challenges, I don't think we have much to worry about under President Trump, who has far bigger fish to fry. People need to realize the "Amtrak is doomed, woe is me!" senseless rhetoric isn't helping anything.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 11, 2016)

There are definitely far bigger fish to fry.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2016)

jis said:


> People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like


I'm just old enough to remember early Reagan (also a political junkie from a young age). This is probably why I'm more relaxed about Trump than many of my friends: I remember Reagan. Clearly.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2016)

jis said:


> I suppose mainly because parties seldom do much with the platform once they get elected.


Yeah, they have totally ignored the platform for a really long time. The Republicans have ignored their own platform since the Reagan administration, possibly earlier, and the Democrats have ignored theirs since the Clinton administration at least.


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 12, 2016)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > People who have not lived through the early Reagan (Stockman) years have no clue what a bad year looks like
> ...


Agreed. As I recall, some of Amtrak's biggest route cuts happened under Democrat administrations. I also think it is dangerous to paint Dems and Repubs with broad strokes. The truth is, NO ONE really knows how this new president will advance a rail agenda.

My biggest gripe with rail supporters, especially on this board, is that the ONLY way forward they see is just pour more money into Amtrak to expand/build new fleets/etc. and REFUSE to look at fundamental organizational changes within the organization and daily operations.

"Profit" and "successful" don't have to mean the same thing.

Mica, whom this thread began with, was never going to politically go for that paradigm shift. Well, this past Tuesday the shift occurred on a plate tectonic scale. Let's see what shakes out.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 12, 2016)

sldispatcher said:


> My biggest gripe with rail supporters, especially on this board, is that the ONLY way forward they see is just pour more money into Amtrak to expand/build new fleets/etc. and REFUSE to look at fundamental organizational changes within the organization and daily operations.
> 
> "Profit" and "successful" don't have to mean the same thing.



Indeed but successful is subjective and there is the rube that is Amtrak. Successful to whom? What is the REAL mission? Well, that depends on who funds it. Until it is funded in a consistent manner, it will ALWAYS be subject to the political whims of those who fund it.

I don't believe board remembers refuse to look at operational or organizational changes. I do believe that most realize that politicians are notoriously resistant to changes that impact their interests so some of the changes people seek are unlikely to come with the government's paw on the pulse.

Those on that really know what can occur can look at examples of potential savings only to have it stymied by particular members that decry the costs, but interfere when things are altered. Even Mica's change was initially larded with elimination of F&B losses without the loss of jobs.


----------



## west point (Nov 12, 2016)

Good points. We may be able to sum it up as "you protect my Amtrak route I'll protect yours " ? Corollary " You help me improve service on my route ( area ) and I'll help you improve yours ".


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 12, 2016)

I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.

I know the usual suspects who troll this site will flame away with usual the usual political based rants seen through the micro view of their world, but the truth is that Amtrak's onboard service, for the price charged, is abysmal in comparison to other forms of transportation.

I'll grant you that the costs of moving people along rail over LONG distances is much more costly than air. But until we can attract a larger number of people to "get onboard", there will not be the broad based political pressure applied to expand service that we need.

:hi:


----------



## TinCan782 (Nov 12, 2016)

Being discussed over on Trainorders ...

*John Mica being talked about as Donald Trump’s U.S. Secretary of Transportation*

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/227107-john-mica-talked-donald-trumps-u-s-secretary-transportation


----------



## Ryan (Nov 12, 2016)

sldispatcher said:


> I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.


Why should Amtrak only get a cut of the profit, when they can do it themselves and keep all the profit?


----------



## west point (Nov 12, 2016)

Be careful what you wish for. Where does he go from here ?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 12, 2016)

sldispatcher said:


> I define success as on time with quality onboard service and experience first and foremost. I quietly advocate that AMTRAK take care of hauling coach, slumbercoach, and basic food service portions of the routes and then sublet / lease/ farm out the above the wheels operation of the food and sleeping car passengers for a cut of the profit from those.
> 
> I know the usual suspects who troll this site will flame away with usual the usual political based rants seen through the micro view of their world, but the truth is that Amtrak's onboard service, for the price charged, is abysmal in comparison to other forms of transportation.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how much of this board you actually read but it is replete with posts bemoaning the loss of quality of the product and the costs which have grown prohibitive (in my opinion) for the average person. Even the employees have mentioned the product has declined and some have even been reported as embarrassed. However, that is one the problems when people demand that costs are cut while having competing visions. While I agree that your vision mirrors mine (an on time, well serviced quality product that makes the experience "memorable" and worth repeating), others may regard our same vision as taxpayer subsidized "luxury" (I always have to contain my laughter when someone uses luxury) or "vacation" travel. There are many who believe Amtrak should be funded as though it is a bus on steel wheels since it should be nothing more than transportation.

I'm not sure how political based rants works its way into this general post but I'd think you'd agree that in order to gain more riders, you need more equipment, more frequency and more options....which means you need adequate funding. It is not a surprise that once the stimulus funding was provided, a bunch of wrecked cars were restored to service and ridership grew. A consistent stream of funding means you can plan for fleet renewal. The diesel fleet takes a hard pounding and there is no relief in sight. The equipment is old and has a relentless pace. The reason people mention funding for additional equipment is because it is the obvious solution.

It would be nice to have properly rested equipment that could be properly maintained instead of deploying a diesel from a turnaround point with the car still wrapped around the cow catcher because you're power short. ^_^


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 13, 2016)

Ryan said:


> Why should Amtrak only get a cut of the profit, when they can do it themselves and keep all the profit?


Because I do not believe their current structure from HR to politics will allow it.


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 13, 2016)

_While I agree that your vision mirrors mine (an on time, well serviced quality product that makes the experience "memorable" and worth repeating), others may regard our same vision as taxpayer subsidized "luxury" (I always have to contain my laughter when someone uses luxury) or "vacation" travel. There are many who believe Amtrak should be funded as though it is a bus on steel wheels since it should be nothing more than transportation._

_I'm not sure how political based rants works its way into this general post but I'd think you'd agree that in order to gain more riders, you need more equipment, more frequency and more options...._

​The fact is that the sleepers need the coaches and the coach passengers need the sleepers. It's no different than legacy air carriers across the Atlantic. The airliner needs both types of seats, BUT there is a significant hard product and soft product difference between the front and back cabins. I would not go so far as to say that is all that obvious on Amtrak. I suggest that a higher class product can demand much more in premium charges. That does indeed require quality equipment and service.

We don't have to look far. Iowa Pacific, if I read everything correctly, is already showing that it can be done. I am not anti-Amtrak. I am anti-Amtrak having to always be in charge of every facet of the travel experience.

In other words, there is a compromise that I believe can lead to great demand, increased quality of onboard service, and exposure to a broader base of the American public that can drive even more improvements.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 13, 2016)

sldispatcher said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Why should Amtrak only get a cut of the profit, when they can do it themselves and keep all the profit?
> ...


And these things are all written in stone, unable to be changed?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 13, 2016)

Trainorders has a thread discussing Mica, God forbid, as Secretary of Transportation in the New Administration!


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 13, 2016)

Already mentioned above. Mica has the transportation resume, is now available, and likely doesn't want to go home to Florida at age 73 to start a whole new career. Just the little problem that Amtrak fans hate him.

And a better candidate is? Better give the name to the transition team quick.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 13, 2016)

Manny T said:


> ... on the future of Amtrak. We have a (nominally) Republican president-elect and the House and Senate have Republican majorities.
> 
> The GOP told us what they want for Amtrak in their 2016 platform (p. 5). H:
> 
> "Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor ... [and on] high-speed and intercity rail across the country. ... end federal support for boondoggles like California’s high-speed train to nowhere."


Close reading of this language is calming. The worst they say about Amtrak is that it's very expensive and the taxpayers must subsidize every ticket.

Admittedly it's a very expensive railroad, like every transit railroad in the country.

Obviously they got it wrong about the subsidies: Neither the Acelas nor the Regionals on the NEC require a subsidy for operations. We have reason to believe that, without the corporate overhead burdening them, about half of the LD trains operate with a surplus. And seems to me that on an inflation-adjusted basis, the operating loss of the entire system has been gradually shrinking. So there's less subsidy than meets the eye.

Then it calls for Amtrak to allow private operators on the NEC. I thought that current legislation already encourages private operators to bid for such work, but ain't happening.

Last the platform opposes any and all unnamed "boondoggles", but especially CAHSR. Well, the Repubs in the House have already been blocking any more federal funds for CAHSR. So this does not represent a new threat.

Amtrak should survive even a few years of DOT Secretary John Mica.


----------



## afigg (Nov 13, 2016)

Carolina Special said:


> Already mentioned above. Mica has the transportation resume, is now available, and likely doesn't want to go home to Florida at age 73 to start a whole new career. Just the little problem that Amtrak fans hate him.
> 
> And a better candidate is? Better give the name to the transition team quick.


Mica does not need to go home to Florida to look for a job. As a former Committee chairman, he could cash in with DC law and lobby firms and make a lot more than he been making as a Congressman. If he is picked as Transportation Secretary and takes the position, he won't make as much money, but will have a lot more power. For better or worse.

Personally, I am very concerned as to what will happen for the next 4 years, with Amtrak as a very small part of the picture. Trump is not like Reagan. Not even close. But that is getting OT.

One interesting sidelight that has some relevance to Amtrak is that US DOT is requesting applications for the FY2017 FASTLANE grant program, deadline is December 15. FASTLANE was authorized as a 5 year program, so apparently it is not dependent on waiting for FY2017 appropriation bills to be passed. Is the current Administration and Secretary Fox going to try to fast track the application reviews and make the FY2017 grant award selections by January 20? Say, a big grant to Chicago CREATE? If they do, that won't lock in the awards because the funds can't be obligated in time and the next Transportation Secretary could cancel the awards if he/she really wanted to.

To be clear, the FY17 FASTLANE application announcement was made before the election, so the process was underway before Nov. 8. USDOT press release: USDOT Requests Applications for $850 Million in FASTLANE Transportation Infrastructure Grants.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 13, 2016)

Actually Mica could quite comfortably retire, given his net worth disclosed between $3 and $9 million. Most of this is evidently in real estate, with apparently not much debt. And 20+ years in Congress provides a decent pension ($50-60k looks like), although maybe not by DC cost of living standards.

Anyway, the allure of power is pretty appealing to most of the guys and gals in Congress. Which I believe is why we have so many congresspersons of retirement age.

If Mica gets the offer, I suspect he'll take it.


----------



## Gulfwind2 (Nov 14, 2016)

As for Mica possibly being appointed to become DOT Secretary, this should be terrifying for those who are in any of Amtrak's unions or to folks like myself who need long distance trains as a basis of movement between states. What we know so far (if the hearsay is true) is that Mica is on the list of candidates. It has been reported that he is interested, and we know of literally no other people who are on the list. Unless the Trump transition team gets a stream of angry letters and e-mails demanding that Mica be taken off the list in favor of someone such as Mike Haverty or Charles A. Kilpatrick (VA DoT Commissioner) whose experience and leadership philosophies better align with Trump's comments on transportation, then Mica is going to be the natural choice. Transportation Secretary is usually among the most thoughtless of the cabinet appointments, and the folks that are brought up for the job usually are met with no resistance whatsoever from citizens or politicians. It would however make an impressive statement if people who have a vested interest in seeing Amtrak meet its needs rather than be toyed with by autocrats who lack rail-related experience were to show resistance toward the potential appointment of Mica as DOT Secretary.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 14, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> I just want to remind everyone that Amtrak has had similar circumstances before and survived, such as the budget crisis of 2002. Amtrak may be different but it should keep going.


&


A Voice said:


> I don't think we've ever come as close to losing Amtrak as we did during the initial years of the Reagan Administration. Don Phillips, of Trains magazine and (then) the Washington Post, commented that for a time in Congress, Amtrak was dead. If the company survived those challenges, I don't think we have much to worry about under President Trump, who has far bigger fish to fry.


The optimistic outlook for Amtrak is apparently based on the concept that having survived Russian Roulette several times in the past there's little harm in yet another spin. From a strictly logical perspective that's an amazingly weak argument to make.



A Voice said:


> People need to realize the "Amtrak is doomed, woe is me!" senseless rhetoric isn't helping anything.


Who exactly are you responding to? There is nothing senseless or unhelpful about being concerned that Amtrak is likely to be at risk of substantial (and possibly severe) budget cuts and/or being pushed into privatization. Nothing at all.



Carolina Special said:


> There are definitely far bigger fish to fry.


Unfortunately we seem to have elected an extremely petty man with an amazingly large skillet.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2016)

The real problem with the strange guy we elected is that no one, including his most ardent supporters actually seem to know what his favorite fish are. many of them are already losing their mind from some of his latest utterances, which I must admit, is kind of entertaining - only if it were not simultaneously terrifying as to what other random policy utterances are forthcoming goring which oxen.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 14, 2016)

jis, he is a Manhattan Populist, not a conservative, so, as you note, nobody knows where he will come down on a lot of issues. I am conservative, but I have to admit that I am looking forward to the howls of pain when he comes out with a populist policy that doesn't agree with the conservative dogma.



jis said:


> The real problem with the strange guy we elected is that no one, including his most ardent supporters actually seem to know what his favorite fish are. many of them are already losing their mind from some of his latest utterances, which I must admit, is kind of entertaining - only if it were not simultaneously terrifying as to what other random policy utterances are forthcoming goring which oxen.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2016)

Yup agreed! He afterall was a Democrat less than two years back, almost literally until the day before he decided to run for President as a Republican


----------



## Hytec (Nov 14, 2016)

This was published today (11/14/16) on the Trains.com Newswire.........

UPDATE Report: Trump team considering John Mica for transportation secretary

By Bob Johnston | November 14, 2016





U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gestures at a committee meeting on Capitol Hill in 2008. The frequent Amtrak critic lost his bid for re-election this year and is rumored to be on President-elect Donald Trump's list as a potential nominee for Secretary of Transportation.
Bob Johnston

ORLANDO, Fla. — Although Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica failed to retain his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after serving there for 24 years, FloridaPolitics.com is reporting that he is under consideration to be U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

On Friday, Mica declined to comment to FloridaPolitics.com about the prospect, but the website did interview Orange County (Fla.) Republican Chairman Lew Oliver, who says he spoke with the congressman. Oliver says that Mica told him that he had heard indirectly — but not directly — that he is on the Trump transition team’s list for the cabinet job and that he is interested.

More available here: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/11/14-mica-transportation-secretary


----------



## snvboy (Nov 14, 2016)

I guess the "draining of the swamp" just means being able to bottle the swamp water and call it Gatorade and re-selling it to us at a profit.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Nov 14, 2016)

Could Mica being Sec Trans cause Amtrak even more problems? Trump says he wants to rebuild the infrastructure, so doing away with Amtrak like Mica wants, doesn't seem like he is in sync with the Trump plan.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 14, 2016)

A possible Mr. Transportation Secretary Mica does not warm my heart on a cold Ohio night.

President-Elect Trump may want work done on infrastructure which could, should mean more jobs available for those qualified to hold them. But, if the objective of our newly elected Congress is to continue to cut taxes, where is the money coming from to build whatever infrastructure our country needs as well as to support or improve/expand Amtrak service? Congress holds the purse strings, remember.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 14, 2016)

One suggestion I've seen is that the government works a lower tax deal to encourage US multinationals to repatriate their cash held overseas due to higher US tax rates. The money the government collects can then be used for infrastructure spending without disturbing the rest of the tax structure, in a sense being found money.

Whether this is workable or not, I don't know. Politicians have been trying to get at these foreign held dollars for a decade or so to fund their pet projects, since the last "tax holiday".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 14, 2016)

Lonestar648 said:


> Could Mica being Sec Trans cause Amtrak even more problems? Trump says he wants to rebuild the infrastructure, so doing away with Amtrak like Mica wants, doesn't seem like he is in sync with the *Trump plan*.


Is there an actual plan published somewhere? I've looked but never found anything specific from Trump himself. That being the case I'm not sure how we are supposed to determine if any given decision or action is in or out of sync with such a plan.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 15, 2016)

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/306005-ousted-gop-lawmaker-eyes-gig-as-trumps-transportation-secretary


----------



## MikeM (Nov 15, 2016)

At this point, it's anyone's guess what happens next. During the election, Trump said he would not touch Medicare yet seven days post election he's signed on to Paul Ryan's proposal to phase Medicare out. He were going to shut down crony capitalism but the treasury secretary candidates are all wall street bankers. I'm not passing judgement on his positions but just noting everything is in flux.

Personally my gut feeling is we are going to see a major push to outsource and privatize anything that can make someone money,and dump anything without strong Republican support. I suspect the most likely end will be the NEC and some regional operations spun out to states, Autotrain and maybe one or two long distance trains might convert to rail cruise routes running at peak times and peak fares. I think in an environment like we'll be in with lots of division and animosity, we will not see rail passenger service rating much attention. Mica would make a bad situation worse but either way I just don't see much reason for optimistic thoughts. .


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > Could Mica being Sec Trans cause Amtrak even more problems? Trump says he wants to rebuild the infrastructure, so doing away with Amtrak like Mica wants, doesn't seem like he is in sync with the *Trump plan*.
> ...


There is no plan, and also many interpret the use of the term "infrastructure" to cover fixed assets and not services provided using those fixed assets. So when Trump says "infrastructure" it could very well cover things like rebuilding the tracks and tunnels of the NEC, but not necessarily providing funding for running services using said assets to a government owned entity. Even more interestingly, providing support for infrastructure may come packaged with divestiture of the same from government ownership to private ownership. So be very careful what you wish for.

IMHO there is absolutely no inconsistency between rebuilding infrastrcture and getting rid of Amtrak as it is constituted today.


----------



## pennyk (Nov 16, 2016)

From today's _Orlando Sentinel_:



> Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica said Tuesday he has been in discussions with the incoming Donald Trump administration about becoming U.S. transportation secretary.
> 
> "I would have an interest in pursuing that," Mica said. Last week, he lost his longtime Central Florida seat to Democratic newcomer Stephanie Murphy, who benefited from redrawn district lines.


on-line article here


----------



## MikeM (Nov 16, 2016)

Totally agree. If it's shiny, impressive, and can be stood in front of for a ceremony, it's a go. If it can be built profitably by someone that is politically connected, it's a go. If it's something that happens daily, isn't flashy, and doesn't make anyone money, it's government waste.

Just afraid that Amtrak falls in category 3. New rail cars and locomotives could be in category 1, but they're going to be competing with bridges and highways which are always more visible it seems. And if Mica gets Transportation Secretary, I can't wait to see the new automat cars in Amtrak long haul service. Yikes. I'm planning my next Amtrak trip quick before things go south.


----------



## WICT106 (Nov 16, 2016)

Please, no.


----------



## FormerOBS (Nov 16, 2016)

snvboy said:


> I guess the "draining of the swamp" just means being able to bottle the swamp water and call it Gatorade and re-selling it to us at a profit.


Lots of frogs, snakes, and gators in that Cabinet. Considering Trump's consistent ratings of about 70% falsehood throughout the campaign, the only thing that surprises me is that some people who voted for him are surprised. They claimed to vote for the guy who represented change, but kept the House and Senate that has spent the past 7-1/2 years resisting any positive changes that would benefit average American workers, veterans, minorities, immigrants, religious and ethnic minorities, or anybody else who doesn't fit into their elite club of 1 percenters.

When the new Auto Train terminal was built in Sanford a couple years ago, Mr. Mica showed up for the opening ceremonies. He asked why the new facility was built in the same cramped location, and not in the more spacious area nearby. He was informed that plans had been made to do exactly that because any fool could see that it made much more sense. But his own Committee killed the funding to do it.

Tom


----------



## FormerOBS (Nov 16, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > Could Mica being Sec Trans cause Amtrak even more problems? Trump says he wants to rebuild the infrastructure, so doing away with Amtrak like Mica wants, doesn't seem like he is in sync with the *Trump plan*.
> ...


Trump and his crew came into the White House ignorant of even the most basic facts about staffing and running the White House. His only plan throughout the campaign has been "It'll be great, and so much better!" No details. Just emotional claptrap. It's about time we all recognize these two overriding facts: 1. There is no plan. 2. The Emperor has no clothes.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 16, 2016)

Excellent posts Tom! 

Fasten your seat belts and get ready for a wild ride as the Gang that can't shoot straight rolls into Washington to collect their spoils!


----------



## neroden (Nov 16, 2016)

jis said:


> The real problem with the strange guy we elected is that no one, including his most ardent supporters actually seem to know what his favorite fish are.


Well, based on some of the very few things he's been consistent about since the 1970s, he likes real estate development, and he supports tarriffs. That's all I know.


----------



## Carolina Special (Nov 16, 2016)

The Art of the Deal.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 16, 2016)

Could it be that he is a Pathological Liar who is dangerous because he doesn't know anything as he proved during the Campaign, and is surrounded by a Palace Guard of Despicable people like Bannon,Flynn, Newt and Rudy?

And did he really "Win" the Election when he lost by over 2,000,000 Votes?

Do the Math!


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2016)

Please take any further general election discussion to Random Discussions. Let's keep this one centered on the Secretary of Transportation and Amtrak.


----------



## sldispatcher (Nov 16, 2016)

Sec of Transportation will hopefully be someone with executive experience that also has served in a government role. That's not a long list for sure.

The sad part is that very few projects can get going quickly.

I'm curious, are there any actual plans/preliminary work done on replacing the long haul bi-level fleet that could be presented to a new Sec of DOT? (I realize that may not be a Sec of DOT decision..was just a question).

Also, are all viewliner car types (I'm assuming a coach car design at least?) is sitting out there waiting for funding/review up the chain?


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2016)

There are no Viewliner car types other than those that have been ordered. Any further orders will go through an RFP and design phase just like this bunch did.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Nov 17, 2016)

jis said:


> There are no Viewliner car types other than those that have been ordered. Any further orders will go through an RFP and design phase just like this bunch did.


Though I would imagine somewhere early in the chain someone has ginned up plans and maybe even models for Viewliner Coaches and Lounges.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Nov 17, 2016)

Lots of people have ginned up plans for Viewliner Lounges, Coaches, slumber coaches, and for all I know swimming pool cars. Unless you are looking to change the window layout, it's not rocket science. A coach is a Viewliner with all window slots occupied, wall panels, an additional ADA restroom, and the Amtrak seat track.

A lounge is a diner with several extra booths and a counter replacing the kitchen. The whole point of the bloody Viewliner design is that it can accommodate any layout and, in theory, you can convert them.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Dec 26, 2016)

Good article on the woman that beat Mica:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/stephanie-murphy-went-vietnam-war-refugee-member-congress-n700181


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 26, 2016)

I have serious doubts that John Mica will become transportation secretary. Mica is anti- passenger rail. His positions are diametrically opposed to that of the president elect who campaigned as a populist highly critical of our decaying transportation infrastructure. With his promise to rebuild and improve the entire transportation system; the president elect must be held accountable to that promise.


----------



## jis (Dec 26, 2016)

You need to catch up with the news. Mica is not in the running for SecDOT any more. A selection has been made and it is not him.


----------



## Ziv (Dec 26, 2016)

Chao isn't a terrible choice. She was Chair of the Maritime Commission, was Dep Sec of Transportation for 2 years and she was also Secretary of Labor for 8 years, so she knows her way around the Hill.

Unfortunately, she is also the wife of Mitch McConnell and she has been named by some crook as having asked for donations ($2,000?) for her husbands campaign. Not sure the validity of that claim but it does leave a bit of a stench behind. Given the level of corruption in DC, this isn't that terrible.

I think this is a neutral pick for Amtrak. Maybe a mild positive.


----------

