# From now until 2016



## Blackwolf (Nov 7, 2012)

Well, it is all but tied up. Barrack Obama has won his second term as President of the United States, and Joe Biden remains as second-in-command.

Now, the what-ifs. For Amtrak? For Passenger Rail as a whole?

The Congressional races are still being tallied, but it also seems as if the politics between dominant political parties remain. Democrats retain control of the Senate, Republicans retain control of the House.

Should be an interesting next 4 years for our beloved National Railroad Passenger Corporation!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 7, 2012)

Right now many unserved areas don't have a high chance of getting a train, so my best bet is expanded NYP-CHI service. Maybe starting off with through cars and then going to a full train. Hope something like that happens.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 7, 2012)

The state legislatures are really where most of the funding will come from, and where the battles will be.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 7, 2012)

The next 2 years likely won't be too much different than the last 4. We'll see new single level equipment come online, new electric motors, and steady growth in revenue and income.

After that, we'll have to see what the 114th Congress brings.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 7, 2012)

Congrats to the Winners in ALL of the Races :hi: , Especially Amtrak Joe Biden  !! The American People have spoken, so we'll get on with Life in the Best Country on Earth! Unfortunately here in Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a good friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Texas Eagle, has Retired and is being replaced by a Tea Party candidate that has pledged to do away with frivilous things like Amtrak!


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Congrats to the Winners in ALL of the Races :hi: , Especially Amtrak Joe Biden  !! The American People have spoken,


Aloha
And we better keep speaking, and constantly remind those the we have sent/voted to represent us, that we will not tolerate their games, that we insist that they do the jobs we are paying the for, They Work for *us!*


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> The state legislatures are really where most of the funding will come from, and where the battles will be.


Yes, we will have to wait and see what the make-up of the House of Representatives will be and what the results were for the states that are prospects for expansion of Amtrak service such as Iowa.

But much of the funding, other than CA, for passenger rail projects will come from the federal government. Amtrak should continue to get $1.4+ billion in annual federal funding. I expect the Obama adminstration will continue efforts to get funding for high(er) speed rail in the budget after the fiscal cliff and tax issues are settled.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm with Ryan. Our Ryan, not the zero-taxes guy. I doubt there will be much in the way of serious change for federal Amtrak funding over the next two years thanks to a continued stalemate between the House and the Senate. There's really no way to predict much beyond that timeline with any accuracy. However, at least with regard to federal Amtrak funding, this was probably the best possible outcome. I would suggest pro-rail folks of all political stripes take a moment to savor two more years of continued funding. Even if you didn't vote for a pro-Amtrak politician you can still benefit from using Amtrak. And who knows, maybe both sides will present pro-rail platforms in the future. If enough people make their positions known it might change things down the line. One can always hope anyway.


----------



## MattW (Nov 7, 2012)

This is pure speculation, but we may actually see more progress in passenger rail in the next four years than we saw in the previous four. Taking a look at the previous 8-year presidency, many of the issues which Bush is (rightly or wrongly) criticized for, occurred during the second half of his presidency. Now that the Obama administration has less to lose (he can't be reelected), we might see a renewed push for expanded rail and transit service. This is a controversial issue for certain and without having to toe the line for reelection, we may see a stronger push in this area.


----------



## NW cannonball (Nov 7, 2012)

MattW said:


> This is pure speculation, but we may actually see more progress in passenger rail in the next four years than we saw in the previous four. Taking a look at the previous 8-year presidency, many of the issues which Bush is (rightly or wrongly) criticized for, occurred during the second half of his presidency. Now that the Obama administration has less to lose (he can't be reelected), we might see a renewed push for expanded rail and transit service. This is a controversial issue for certain and without having to toe the line for reelection, we may see a stronger push in this area.


No predictions here - hope reason and unbiased cost-benefit will support more trains -- which would sure help me more than more motofuel and freeway would help me.

We'll see what happens.


----------



## jmx53 (Nov 7, 2012)

The Republicans will still have majority in the house and Representative Mica was re-elected. What are the chances that he remains as Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee?


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 7, 2012)

The election result is a continuation of the status quo, so I do not expect any significant changes. Amtrak will continue to limp along with starvation appropriations, enough to keep the existing network functioning but no expansions or improvements. It will continue to be punching bag, but ultimately not killed by Congress. The 2nd Obama administration will not advocate killing it, but won't go out of its way to push for more support, either. Basically it is way on the back burner for them as it usually is for most administrations that aren't actively trying to kill it.

In other words, the situation remains as it basically always has been since, well, 1971.

The actual wild card is the requirement for full state support of trains under 750 miles per PRIIA next year. That is almost certainly going to go into effect, and will mean the death of any short/medium run trains in states that refuse to financially kick in. The Hoosier State comes to mind as one of the likely victims.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 7, 2012)

jmx53 said:


> The Republicans will still have majority in the house and Representative Mica was re-elected. What are the chances that he remains as Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee?


Assuming he doesn't die, resign, or get caught with an intern, 100%.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Nov 7, 2012)

While both houses of the Minnesota state legislature went Democrat, Wisconsin went more Republican. No strong action on a state supported CHI-MSP in the next 2 years.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Congrats to the Winners in ALL of the Races :hi: , Especially Amtrak Joe Biden  !! The American People have spoken, so we'll get on with Life in the Best Country on Earth! Unfortunately here in Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a good friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Texas Eagle, has Retired and is being replaced by a Tea Party candidate that has pledged to do away with frivilous things like Amtrak!


Does the State of Texas support the Texas Eagle financially?

If not, what can they do to stop the train?


----------



## NW cannonball (Nov 7, 2012)

Exiled in Express said:


> While both houses of the Minnesota state legislature went Democrat, Wisconsin went more Republican. No strong action on a state supported CHI-MSP in the next 2 years.


I'm in MN -- any route to Iowa we can do? Looks like a better deal than WI - let WI isolate itself - darned CHeeseHeADS anyhow.


----------



## WICT106 (Nov 7, 2012)

(Replying to 'NW cannonball' & 'Exiled In Express') : I suggest looking at a Twin Cities to Kansas City route, via Des Moines. A second suggestion is to go from Saint Paul to Winnipeg, MB. One issue you will encounter is Iowa Governor Branstead, and many Iowa Rs, have adopted the anti-passenger rail attitude. It will be a challenge getting support for additional trains from those who only see one train each way per day, or those who have no service at all. As I have encountered in Wisconsin, it is easy for those who have never been aboard a train, or never had a reason to ever ride a train, to oppose expansion of train service. They didn't feel any need for it before -- you'll have to get them to see the need for it tomorrow.

I mean, those of us who post here see the need for expanded passenger train service. The trick will be convincing those who have never seen any need to take a train to support service expansion.


----------



## Exiled in Express (Nov 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> I'm in MN -- any route to Iowa we can do? Looks like a better deal than WI - let WI isolate itself - darned CHeeseHeADS anyhow.


I don't know the rail network well at all but I believe there was an option disucssed in previous threads, both longer and slower. Rather than take the politically expedient but less preferred option on Chicago, I'd prefer if the Northstar is extended to Saint Cloud and frequnecy beefed up as well as get Duluth in the construction stage and accelerate a fourth and fifth metro light rail line.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats to the Winners in ALL of the Races :hi: , Especially Amtrak Joe Biden  !! The American People have spoken, so we'll get on with Life in the Best Country on Earth! Unfortunately here in Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a good friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Texas Eagle, has Retired and is being replaced by a Tea Party candidate that has pledged to do away with frivilous things like Amtrak!
> ...


No, the Eagle is a 100% Federally Supported LD Train! The heartland Flyer from FTW-OKC is supported by both Oklahoma and Texas! The reason Senator Hutchison is considered a friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Eagle is that as a US Senator she helped put Money into Amtrak when Presidents of Both Parties recommended Zeroing out Amtrak's Budget! She also placed Riders that "Earmarked" Funding for the Texas Eagle into Legislation! 

In the case of the Heartland Flyer it doesnt seem that the State of Kansas is going to contribute any Funding so the Route can be expanded! So the Status Quo will be maintained with this Train!


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> Exiled in Express said:
> 
> 
> > While both houses of the Minnesota state legislature went Democrat, Wisconsin went more Republican. No strong action on a state supported CHI-MSP in the next 2 years.
> ...


Consider the possibility of a MSP - CHI service via the original CB&Q/GN route - the real route of the Empire Builder! 

I wonder what if any, will be the effect of the Governor changing hands from Dem to Rep in North Carolina.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 7, 2012)

What I predict is that Amtrak will continue to grow for the next four years, taking in larger passenger revenues AND larger subsidies. They will not do any better in generating non-ticket revenue nor controlling bad labor and the costs associated with golden retirement packages.

They will fall deeper in debt and will become even a greater target in 4 years due to mismanagement of employees and funds.


----------



## transit54 (Nov 7, 2012)

While I think Amtrak is going to continue steadily improve over time, and I don't think that there will be much in the way of increased federal operating subsidies, I do hope that we will continue to see capital grants made to Amtrak and the states for infrastructure and equipment. I think the grants that were issued by the FRA as part of the stimulus package and other legislation were resoundingly successful, despite some high profile rejections by Republican governors. I truly hope to see more of the same, though I think for practical and political reasons we should shift the focus to "passenger rail" from exclusively "high speed rail."


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 7, 2012)

I agree with this. HSR is not the real answer. I'd rather see those Billions of $$$$$$ put into Amtrak to improve and/or expand service. And I'm not just saying that because I live on a 150 MPH stretch! Many more people in (say) MT, NV, NM, AR or WV I think would rather have another "slow" train that have a semi short stretch of 200+ MPH in some other area of country!


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2012)

Exiled in Express said:


> While both houses of the Minnesota state legislature went Democrat, Wisconsin went more Republican. No strong action on a state supported CHI-MSP in the next 2 years.


If Minnesota is willing to provide the subsidy for a Chicago to Twin Cities daily corridor train over the EB route, then it can run through Wisconsin. Wi has little to say about it if it does not require funding from WI. The train would run on privately freight railroad tracks. There might some issues to work out on the Hiawatha scheduling, but if WI does not have to pay for the train while getting a second daily train over the route, there is no reason for them to try to block it, even if they could. Maine pays for the Downeaster with NH contributing nothing, even though the NH stops on the route have greatly benefited from the service.

It is a different matter for a building a 110 or 90 mph corridor service with major track upgrades through WI. Then, yes, MN and the federal government would look to WI to contribute state funds for their share of the project as WI would obviously benefit. Since Walker is not likely to support any such project, the engineering studies and EIS reviews can continue to pick out a route, define what track upgrades are needed, and finish the FEIS process while waiting for a post-Walker era in WI.


----------



## WICT106 (Nov 7, 2012)

the_traveler said:


> I agree with this. HSR is not the real answer. I'd rather see those Billions of $$$$$$ put into Amtrak to improve and/or expand service. And I'm not just saying that because I live on a 150 MPH stretch! Many more people in (say) MT, NV, NM, AR or WV I think would rather have another "slow" train that have a semi short stretch of 200+ MPH in some other area of country!


I'm inclined to agree -- but for those who say to skip WI, I have already made my suggestions about connecting Saint Paul with Omaha or Kansas City. Also, make the service more than one-train-per-day-each-way. Think of the population centers served along the route, not just the endpoints -- that is one way to argue for better service: point out the population served along the line.


----------



## transit54 (Nov 7, 2012)

WICT106 said:


> I'm inclined to agree -- but for those who say to skip WI, I have already made my suggestions about connecting Saint Paul with Omaha or Kansas City. Also, make the service more than one-train-per-day-each-way. Think of the population centers served along the route, not just the endpoints -- that is one way to argue for better service: point out the population served along the line.


There's absolutely no reason that we should skip WI. However, the project needs to be lead at the state, not the federal level. In order to make the application, the state needs to agree to a commitment to fund the operating costs of the service. The exceptions I would make are for situations where a small portion of a recalcitrant state lies between two otherwise desirable endpoints - such as the Downeaster through NH. But regardless of past politics, all interested applications should be considered equally.

To clarify: I think it's really MN's call regarding WI. If MN is willing to foot the bill regardless of what WI does, let them build it. Regardless of political affiliation, WI isn't going to block a project they won't have to contribute to. But fares can be adjusted accordingly to compensate somewhat, although that's less than ideal.


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2012)

jis said:


> I wonder what if any, will be the effect of the Governor changing hands from Dem to Rep in North Carolina.


IIRC, I read that the new Governor in NC is the former mayor of Charlotte. That would suggest that he would in support of the Piedmont corridor project.

The results from the local state elections are still coming in and take a while to get summarized by the national political tracking sites, but I see NH elected a Democratic governor and both US House seats in NH went Democratic. If NH is turning more blue, it might get more involved in the New England passenger rail plans.

From a quick google search on Iowa, the Democrats are in solid control of the Iowa State Senate and picked up seats in the Iowa House, but the Republicans are expected to retain control by only a narrow margin. That could be enough to tilt the Iowa House to supporting the service extension to Iowa City.


----------



## Ispolkom (Nov 7, 2012)

transit54 said:


> To clarify: I think it's really MN's call regarding WI. If MN is willing to foot the bill regardless of what WI does, let them build it.


Give the political realities in Minnesota, that means that it won't get built. There's no way a DFL-led legislature is going to put money into a project that can be claimed to principally benefit Wisconsin. Extending Northstar to St. Cloud, and perhaps a train to Rochester are far more likely (though still not very likely). Given Anoka County's position, and the lack of a strong patron like Oberstar, the Twin Cities-Duluth train also seems like a stillborn project to me.

I wish the DFL were as prorail as the Republicans are anti, but I just don't see it. In the recent campaign that saw the DFL win control of the state house, I don't remember hearing anything about rail, except for some Republican claims that the Green Line light rail was a boondoggle. I certainly can't identify any strong advocate for passenger rail among DFL legislators.


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what if any, will be the effect of the Governor changing hands from Dem to Rep in North Carolina.
> ...


That is good to know. Of course there is also good news about Orange County in NC too.


----------



## trainviews (Nov 7, 2012)

Well with the election over we know this much:

The administration will not push actively for an elimination of Amtrak, and probably not for large cuts either. The Senate is not likely to do so either. The House majority is likely to keep pushing for elimination/privatisation/deep cuts to Amtrak. So this is pretty much status quo.

On the other hand the administration will have very few money for new initiatives. Even if it could find the money it is unknown how much political capital it would be willing to spend on trains after the HSR initiative has fizzled out. Whatever comes out of the Senate is wholly unpredictable.

The wild card is the whole financial cliff situation. Honestly it is totally uforseeable which conseqeunces a compromise would have on a minor area like Amtrak, if any can be reached. And the concequences of the automatic cuts if not, are equally unforseeable. Again the key is how much political capital the Obama administration and Amtrak's supporters in the Senate will want to spend protecting passenger rail. It might be sacrificed for higher priorities.

But ironically the ideological war against Amtrak from some republicans might also save it. With it Amtrak has become a pretty visible nugget, that the Democrats could take the honor for saving without really spending much money in a situation full of large and painful cuts...

So what will happen? - the process is far too random and chaotic too predict the outcome. But to say that Amtrak is saved by the election is premature, even if the current administration and senate majority has no intention of getting rid of it.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 7, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what if any, will be the effect of the Governor changing hands from Dem to Rep in North Carolina.
> ...


Regarding NH, it will be interesting to see if the Capital Corridor proposal (Boston - Concord) goes anywhere now. And/or MBTA extensions into southern NH.

Regarding, IA, hopefully we get a positive decision there in the coming months regarding the Moline-Iowa CIty extension. Has IA Gov Branstad made any comments about this in the last few months?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2012)

I tend to agree on needing to shift the focus from HSR to passenger rail as a general concept. The problem, of course, is that HSR is "shiny" while generic passenger rail isn't. I don't see it as "flypaper" in the way I do the Sunset East, mind you, but it _is_ a good way to swallow large amounts of capital on relatively localized projects (i.e. those only in one state or in part of one state).


----------



## Gratt (Nov 7, 2012)

the_traveler said:


> I agree with this. HSR is not the real answer. I'd rather see those Billions of $$$$$$ put into Amtrak to improve and/or expand service. And I'm not just saying that because I live on a 150 MPH stretch! Many more people in (say) MT, NV, NM, AR or WV I think would rather have another "slow" train that have a semi short stretch of 200+ MPH in some other area of country!


Everyone would want more train service in their part of the country as aposed to somewhere else. As to what is more important HSR or slow trains, I will say that frequent, rapid, trains that shares a strech of track with a LD train helps the LD train a lot more than it does the regional service.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 7, 2012)

With the passage of the transit tax in Orange County, NC, funding (partial? all? not sure) is now in place for a new Amtrak station in Hillsborough. Unless I'm mistaken, this would be between Durham and Burlington. Anybody more familiar with that area have any insight or comments about this proposed station?


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2012)

zephyr17 said:


> The election result is a continuation of the status quo, so I do not expect any significant changes. Amtrak will continue to limp along with starvation appropriations, enough to keep the existing network functioning but no expansions or improvements. It will continue to be punching bag, but ultimately not killed by Congress. The 2nd Obama administration will not advocate killing it, but won't go out of its way to push for more support, either. Basically it is way on the back burner for them as it usually is for most administrations that aren't actively trying to kill it.
> 
> In other words, the situation remains as it basically always has been since, well, 1971.
> 
> The actual wild card is the requirement for full state support of trains under 750 miles per PRIIA next year. That is almost certainly going to go into effect, and will mean the death of any short/medium run trains in states that refuse to financially kick in. The Hoosier State comes to mind as one of the likely victims.


There will be changes and progress in the next 4 years. Only a piece of the $10.1 billion in HSIPR funds has been spent so far. The 160 funded projects should mostly be completed by the end of 2016.

While Obama may be dealing with a Republican House, some of the Tea party types have been defeated and it looks that the House will have a narrower Republican majority. I can see the Administration getting $500 or $800 million for TIGER and intercity passenger rail grants through the House. Not the $4 billion a year that was the goal at one time, but funding to apply to smaller improvement projects. We shall see how that plays out.

Even if the House refuses to cooperate, the Obama administration still has tools they can use and grant programs they can tap for passenger rail projects. Award FTA and FRA grants that also benefit passenger rail. Continue, under the 2008 PRIIA act, to provide direct Treasury transfer payments for early buyouts of the Warrington era equipment leases to reduce the debt burden and payments for the old equipment.

There is the big lever of the $35 billion RRIF loan program authority. I think we will see Xpress West (formerly Desert Xpress) get a $5 to $5.5 billion dollar loan for Victorville to Las Vegas. The FEC could get a loan for the Miami to Orlando project. CA HSR could tap the RRIF loan program for a few billion in low interest financing. That would be three intercity passenger rail projects building entirely new tracks on new ROWs. Would anyone 5 years have thought that was possible in the US? Once the eastern states are signed up and paying annual subsidies & capital charges for the eastern corridor services, Amtrak may able to draw on that income along with the operating profit from the NEC Regionals to qualify for a RRIF loan for Amfleet replacements.

As for the state subsidy requirements, only the Hooiser State appears to be likely to be dropped. Although whether PA will pay the full amount for the current level of Keystone service and the Pennsylvanian remains to be seen. It looks as if the rest of the states will provide what they need to.


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2012)

Eric S said:


> Regarding NH, it will be interesting to see if the Capital Corridor proposal (Boston - Concord) goes anywhere now. And/or MBTA extensions into southern NH.


Don't know if NH will start on passenger rail projects, but the Democrats took control of the NH House and the Republicans will have a much smaller majority in the NH State Senate. Add a Democratic Governor and there should at least be a more favorable political climate on possible MBTA extension into NH and the Boston - Concord proposal. OTOH, it's New Hampshire.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 7, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> What I predict is that Amtrak will continue to grow for the next four years, taking in larger passenger revenues AND larger subsidies.


Subsidies are going to go down when the states start kicking in more money.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> The reason Senator Hutchison is considered a friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Eagle is that as a US Senator she helped put Money into Amtrak when Presidents of Both Parties recommended Zeroing out Amtrak's Budget!


Not this crap again. Hutchison was a US Senator from Texas staring in 1993, correct? If that's the case then apparently you're claiming Barack Obama and/or Bill Clinton recommended zeroing out Amtrak's budget during this time. So which one made this recommendation and what sort of evidence do you have to back it up?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 7, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > The reason Senator Hutchison is considered a friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Eagle is that as a US Senator she helped put Money into Amtrak when Presidents of Both Parties recommended Zeroing out Amtrak's Budget!
> ...


Bill Clinton DID recommend cuts to Amtrak as well as W Chris! And Google up the Texas Eagle info, Im not defending her whole record, just her support of Amtrak! And look what we have for a replacement!


----------



## jebr (Nov 7, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> > To clarify: I think it's really MN's call regarding WI. If MN is willing to foot the bill regardless of what WI does, let them build it.
> ...


I wonder, though, if they could get a few incremental steps done, especially with the 2014 bonding bill, to increase ridership. For example, if they could get the third line around Fridley, allowing more frequencies, that could help to increase ridership, making a Foley Blvd. station possible. If that station can be built, ridership could have a dramatic increase, as there's a 3,200 stall park-and-ride there that's at 90% capacity. If even a majority of those riders could become Northstar commuters, the ridership would skyrocket and perhaps gain enough ridership to be eligible for federal funding for the expansion to St. Cloud.

Increasing Northstar Link frequency to meet every train would also help.


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Bill Clinton DID recommend cuts to Amtrak as well as W Chris! And Google up the Texas Eagle info, Im not defending her whole record, just her support of Amtrak! And look what we have for a replacement!


So you think adjusting the budget downwards a little is the same as zeroing it out? Strange conceptualization disconnected with reality, but OK, as long as we understand what you mean.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> The reason Senator Hutchison is considered a friend of Amtrak and Saviour of the Eagle is that as a US Senator she helped put Money into Amtrak when Presidents of Both Parties recommended Zeroing out Amtrak's Budget!


Both parties have a president? Does that mean none of my 11 votes made a difference? I hated standing in line over and over.

Dang! No wonder I failed the citizenship test!


----------



## transit54 (Nov 7, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Bill Clinton DID recommend cuts to Amtrak as well as W Chris!


Indeed. The Montrealer was lost under Clinton.

My understanding was that the Obama administration was the first since Amtrak's inception that did not attempt to cut Amtrak funding and actually worked to increase funding for rail projects. Obviously NHV-BOS electrification happened under Clinton, and I believe that PHL-HAR electrification occurred under Bush, but there's really no parallel to the amount of money that the Obama administration has invested in passenger rail.

IMHO, "Amtrak Joe" is the major reason behind this. But who really knows, I'm just pleased that passenger trains have started to get more attention and that there's exciting projects underway in many areas of the country.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 8, 2012)

transit54 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton DID recommend cuts to Amtrak as well as W Chris!
> ...


Then it's good that Obama still is president, other issues aside. But PHL-HAR was electrified since the old days of PRR!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 8, 2012)

jis said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton DID recommend cuts to Amtrak as well as W Chris! And Google up the Texas Eagle info, Im not defending her whole record, just her support of Amtrak! And look what we have for a replacement!
> ...


Apparently, the only way this bogus claim works is if you pretend that pruning a branch here and there is no different than chopping the whole tree down, grinding it up, dousing it with petrol, setting fire to the chips, and salting the soil. Until there is some actual evidence that administrations from both parties have tried to zero out Amtrak's budget this disingenuous false equivalency nonsense needs to stop.


----------



## transit54 (Nov 8, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Then it's good that Obama still is president, other issues aside. But PHL-HAR was electrified since the old days of PRR!


Oh, absolutely. But wasn't there some issue that prevented Amtrak from using the infrastructure? It was too old and in disrepair or something of that nature? I recall that Amtrak did a substantial amount of work to reelectrify the route in the 2006-2007 timeframe (I could have my dates a little off).


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 8, 2012)

jis said:


> I wonder what if any, will be the effect of the Governor changing hands from Dem to Rep in North Carolina.


There are some horrifying possibilities there. The NC legislature (run by Republicans) was talking about looting money from the state-owned North Carolina Railroad (which is where the Piedmont runs), and then started talking about selling it off (for less than it's worth, obviously) to privateers. Let's hope there's some sanity and civic-mindedness left in the Republicans running NC (though I don't think it's likely).

Anyway, in good news, the state-level and local-level results of the election should result in more government support for passenger rail in California, Hawaii, Washington, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, and at least parts of Virginia. And I hope for New York and Vermont as well. Bad news in Wisconsin, and Iowa still seems to be stalemated. I don't really know about several other states (Pennsylvania and New Jersey in particular).


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 8, 2012)

afigg said:


> IIRC, I read that the new Governor in NC is the former mayor of Charlotte. That would suggest that he would in support of the Piedmont corridor project.


I hope you're right.



> The results from the local state elections are still coming in and take a while to get summarized by the national political tracking sites, but I see NH elected a Democratic governor and both US House seats in NH went Democratic. If NH is turning more blue, it might get more involved in the New England passenger rail plans.


The long-awaited Nashua/Manchester rail service might actually happen.



> From a quick google search on Iowa, the Democrats are in solid control of the Iowa State Senate and picked up seats in the Iowa House, but the Republicans are expected to retain control by only a narrow margin. That could be enough to tilt the Iowa House to supporting the service extension to Iowa City.


Boy, I hope so. That would be good news.

Regarding Minnesota, the Duluth project is kind of on ice due to high expenses and low predicted ridership, and the Northstar extension is also on ice probably due to the situation with the existing line. I would expect to see rail improvements within the Twin Cities area now, however -- the Foley Blvd. station, the triple-tracking, continued extension of the light rail system, the flyovers at the junction east of St Paul Union Depot, perhaps even one of the other proposed commuter rail lines.


----------



## afigg (Nov 8, 2012)

zephyr17 said:


> jmx53 said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans will still have majority in the house and Representative Mica was re-elected. What are the chances that he remains as Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee?
> ...


I was wondering about Chairman Mica. No, it turns out he is term limited because the House Republicans some years back put term limits on how long someone can be the ranking minority member or Chairman of a committee. Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA) is seeking the Chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee according to this Progressive Railroading article. As I recall, he was a major backer of the effort to push a bill to take the NEC away from Amtrak and have private investors take it over. Which went nowhere with the Senate and the Obama Administration.


----------



## MattW (Nov 8, 2012)

Has anyone heard who is going to replace Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood?


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 8, 2012)

Obama victory likely to preserve highway, Amtrak funding



> President Obama's reelection is likely to ensure efforts to privatize Amtrak service and cut transportation funding will be unsuccessful.
> 
> Unsuccessful Republican nominee Mitt Romney had repeatedly pledged to eliminate government funding for Amtrak, and GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget would have limited transportation funding to revenues generated by the federal gas tax.
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2012)

transit54 said:


> Oh, absolutely. But wasn't there some issue that prevented Amtrak from using the infrastructure? It was too old and in disrepair or something of that nature? I recall that Amtrak did a substantial amount of work to reelectrify the route in the 2006-2007 timeframe (I could have my dates a little off).


Yes, your mind is not deceiving you, there was a period of time where Amtrak used diesels only on the Keystone line. This was due in part to a shortage of electric motors, but also because the power infrastructure had been allowed to deteriorate. The State of PA & Amtrak invested heavily to restore electric service and to upgrade the tracks for higher speeds in the early 2000's.

.


----------



## afigg (Nov 8, 2012)

MattW said:


> Has anyone heard who is going to replace Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood?


According to The Hill, it is not clear if Secretary LaHood will step down or not. If Obama asks him to stay on for another year or two, sounds like LaHood might agree to do so.

Possible successors that have been mentioned, not only in The Hill but elsewhere, are Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or former Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania & former Mayor of Philadelphia. Speaking of the PHL-HAR line, Rendell helped to get $160 million of PA state funding to restore the line and Keystone service. Rendell has been a major advocate of increased infrastructure spending and transportation, and would very likely be very supportive of funding for NEC improvements.


----------



## afigg (Nov 8, 2012)

Ah, the game of who gets what job in Congress and the Cabinet is now is underway now that the election is over. DC's version of Games of Thrones, but with a lower body count. 

Mica may ask for a waiver to stay on as the committee chairman while Bill Shuster is openly seeking the chairmanship. Get ready for a behind the scenes rumble. See The Hill article "Shuster confident transportation panel bid despite possible Mica waiver."


----------



## Anderson (Nov 8, 2012)

Since I'm not familiar with Bill Shuster (I always mix him up with Bud "I have a freeway named for me" Shuster), could someone clue me in on his politics?


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Since I'm not familiar with Bill Shuster (I always mix him up with Bud "I have a freeway named for me" Shuster), could someone clue me in on his politics?


Isn't he the guy that had been gunning to privatize NEC?


----------



## afigg (Nov 8, 2012)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Since I'm not familiar with Bill Shuster (I always mix him up with Bud "I have a freeway named for me" Shuster), could someone clue me in on his politics?
> ...


Yes, he was. That proposal did not get any traction, so to speak. Looking Shuster up, my impression is that he may be more conservative than Congressman Mica with a let's privatize almost everything bent. Probably won't be that different from Amtrak's perspective than dealing with Mica, but Amtrak may get spared the hearings on losses in food service, which appears to be Mica's fixation.

I tend to mix him up with Bud Shuster as well, because when I wrote the earlier post, I had written Bud which i had to correct. His father was a legend when it came to earmark spending on transportation and local projects which gave us the Bud Shuster Highway in PA.


----------



## jmx53 (Nov 8, 2012)

afigg said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > jmx53 said:
> ...





afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


You beat me to it RE: Mica being term limited as Chair of the T&I committee. This morning Jason Dick, who focuses on reporting on the House for Rollcall.com, also said on C-span that Bill Shuster is likely to succeed Mica as chair.

Shuster is currently chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. I skimmed a few entries on his congressional website and according to a May 2011 entry it says that the legislation he proposed with Mica to separate the NEC from Amtrak would transfer it to a separate entity. They wanted to begin a competitive bidding process that would allow for a public-private partnership to design, build, operate, maintain, and finance high-speed service. They said this plan would improve the NEC to true HSR in 10 rather than 30 years, and at a fraction of the $117 billion cost proposed by Amtrak, and would have running times of less than 2 hrs between DC and NYC.

Shuster also states that the HSR funds should have been directed solely at the NEC and not spread around to the other proposed HSR corridors in other parts of the country. I didn't see where he stands on LD trains but it sounds like he might be against them and in favor of only having passenger rail in places where there is a dense population corridor. Also didn't see any mention of where he stands on food service.

On another website which tracks voting records on various issues, he is rated as a hard-core conservative and his voting record RE: Amtrak is: Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) & Voted NO on increasing Amtrak funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 9, 2012)

AlanB said:


> transit54 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, absolutely. But wasn't there some issue that prevented Amtrak from using the infrastructure? It was too old and in disrepair or something of that nature? I recall that Amtrak did a substantial amount of work to reelectrify the route in the 2006-2007 timeframe (I could have my dates a little off).
> ...


Oh, all right. I guess Bush was kinda neutral to Amtrak, which is at least better than trying to axe it! Now Carter REALLY messed up when he recommended those cuts, now the Floridian will take forever to return!


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2012)

Wait, explain that record? He voted to give Amtrak $9.7bn in 2008 but not to up funding in 2006? What were the overlying bills for those votes?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 9, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Wait, explain that record? He voted to give Amtrak $9.7bn in 2008 but not to up funding in 2006? What were the overlying bills for those votes?


Hmm, sounds weird.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 9, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Oh, all right. I guess Bush was kinda neutral to Amtrak, which is at least better than trying to axe it! Now Carter REALLY messed up when he recommended those cuts, now the Floridian will take forever to return!


President George W Bush's White House was hardly neutral to Amtrak. Twice they sent over the proposed budget to Congress with Zero dollars in funding for Amtrak. I'd say that's pretty hostile!

Mind you, I personally don't believe that it was Mr. Bush who zeroed out funding, which is why I said "his White House" did it. I believe that other's behind the scene did that.


----------



## jmx53 (Nov 9, 2012)

jmx53 said:


> On another website which tracks voting records on various issues, he is rated as a hard-core conservative and his voting record RE: Amtrak is: Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) & Voted NO on increasing Amtrak funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)





Anderson said:


> Wait, explain that record? He voted to give Amtrak $9.7bn in 2008 but not to up funding in 2006? What were the overlying bills for those votes?


I got those numbers from Shuster's page on http://www.ontheissu...nvironment.htm:

Reference: Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act; Bill HR6003 ; vote number 2008-400 on Jun 11, 2008

Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013 for Amtrak capital and operating grants; Amtrak repayment of long-term debt and capital leases; and the rail cooperative research program.

Authorizes grants for the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool Committee.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: Rep. OBERSTAR: America is on the threshold of a "renaissance'' for intercity passenger rail that approaches the enthusiasm of the completion of the transcontinental railroad. Last year, Amtrak set a ridership record for the fifth year in a row, exceeding 25.8 million passengers. Its ticket revenues rose 11 percent to more than $1.5 billion, the third straight year of revenue growth. This record of achievement is even more impressive considering that for the past eight years Amtrak has contended with an Administration committed to its bankruptcy. Indeed, these achievements are occurring when there is a greater need than ever for alternatives to our congested highways and skies. To alleviate this congestion and strengthen our energy security, we need to invest in intercity passenger rail.

Other countries already make an annual commitment to intercity passenger rail. In 2003 alone, France invested $10.6 billion in its rail system; Germany invested $12.4 billion; and the United Kingdom invested $7.8 billion. China plans to spend a total of $162 billion from 2006 through 2010 to expand its railway system. This bill authorizes $14 billion over 5 years:

$6.7 billion for capital grants

$3.0 billion for operating grants

$2.5 billion for 80% matching grants to States to pay for the capital costs of facilities

$1.75 billion to finance 11 authorized high-speed rail corridors

Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M.

Reference: Department of Transportation appropriations; Bill HR 5576 Amendment 1008 ; vote number 2006-263 on Jun 13, 2006

Voting YES on this amendment would restore $214 million in funding for AMTRAK, bringing the total annual expenditure for AMTRAK to $1.114 billion. The chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee explained the increase as follows:

Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated funding for investing in our Nation's passenger rail service. This amendment restores $214 million to the Amtrak account, taking it to $1.114 billion, which is still about $300 million less than we had during the course of last year's discussion.

Last year the President sent up a budget of zero for Amtrak. We had an amendment process that we went through this time. This time we are up to $900 million in the bill [without this amendment].

But if you look at that $900 million, there is only $500 million for capital expenditures, out of which has to come a debt service of $280 million, which only leaves $220 million for the capital needs of this country for Amtrak, for passenger rail.

There is nothing for operation, and I know that the response to that is going to be that there are some incentive grants in the bill.

Opponents of the amendment say that it would increase funding for Amtrak by gutting and eliminating critical programs, including safety programs, resulting in reductions in force at several agencies.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 10, 2012)

jmx53 said:


> Other countries already make an annual commitment to intercity passenger rail. In 2003 alone, France invested $10.6 billion in its rail system; Germany invested $12.4 billion; and the United Kingdom invested $7.8 billion. China plans to spend a total of $162 billion from 2006 through 2010 to expand its railway system. This bill authorizes $14 billion over 5 years:
> 
> $6.7 billion for capital grants
> 
> ...


Wow, for the small countries, Deutschland tops out at much higher than the US. They do have agreat system but I feel that some more comfortable seats are needed for the longer runs, like Berlin-Munich. First Class has wider seats but the seat pitch isn't much better.


----------



## dlagrua (Nov 10, 2012)

Considering the fiscal mess that the government is in, I see no change in Amtrak policy, few if any new routes and a continuance of the ongoing struggle for improvment in passenger rail. If Amtrak continues to grow to the point where the service is bursting at the seams,then perhaps we will see more support from Washington.


----------



## nocTurnal (Nov 13, 2012)

What's the update on the $150 million new train system from Philadelphia-NYC-Boston? The one where the train will speed up to 210 mph. Are they building new tracks for it?


----------



## afigg (Nov 13, 2012)

jmx53 said:


> Reference: Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act; Bill HR6003 ; vote number 2008-400 on Jun 11, 2008
> 
> Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013 for Amtrak capital and operating grants; Amtrak repayment of long-term debt and capital leases; and the rail cooperative research program.
> 
> Authorizes grants for the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool Committee.


This is an Authorization bill, not a funding bill. The funds have to be provided in each fiscal year appropriations bill. In 2008, it was not a big deal for a conservative Congressman to vote for the PRIIA bill. Amtrak is authorized to receive around $2.2 billion each year under the PRIIA bill, but got $1.47 billion in FY11 and $1.41 billion in FY12. The final FY13 funding levels remain to be settled.


----------



## afigg (Nov 13, 2012)

nocTurnal said:


> What's the update on the $150 million new train system from Philadelphia-NYC-Boston? The one where the train will speed up to 210 mph. Are they building new tracks for it?


It is the $117 billion Next Gen NEC plan with the 220 mph HSR trains. $33 billion of the $150 billion number that was publicized is for modernization and capacity expansion of the current NEC including the Gateway project, multiple 160 mph segments, bridge & tunnel replacements, Keystone East & New Haven-Springfield corridors.

The $117 billion Next Gen NEC concept is a very long way from starting construction, if it does manage to do so. It is a concept, not a detailed plan with engineering design so far.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 13, 2012)

afigg said:


> nocTurnal said:
> 
> 
> > What's the update on the $150 million new train system from Philadelphia-NYC-Boston? The one where the train will speed up to 210 mph. Are they building new tracks for it?
> ...


I don't think NextGen NEc will happen unless the politicians wake up to the reality that America needs passenger rail. Then they'll have to expand everything else as well. Also, $150 billion is FAR more than $150 million!


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 14, 2012)

An interesting take on what might happen if/when Mica is no longer chair of the House Transportation Committee. I've included some excerpts, but read the whole thing.



> What Kind of Leadership Would Bill Shuster Bring to the Transpo Committee?
> 
> Over the next few weeks, we could see a shake-up on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House. Current Chair John Mica (R-FL) has been the top Republican on the committee for six years, and according to GOP rules, that’s the limit. While Mica is asking leadership for a little wiggle room, his deputy is making the case for his own candidacy. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) announced late last week that he would seek the chairmanship.
> 
> ...


----------



## jebr (Nov 14, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> > Shuster believes high-speed rail should be limited to the Northeast Corridor, which he says is the only place in the country with the appropriate conditions for it. [...] For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.


Bingo. Yeah, high speed rail is nice, but with limited federal money, frequency and reliability is a first priority. If I can get there in roughly the same time as driving a car for a corridor-level fare (Hiawatha, etc.), I'll take that over 150mph speeds but have to pay NER or Acela fares. Longer distances are probably best served by aircraft, anyways, and even high speed rail can't compete terribly effectively time-wise with long-haul flights.



CHamilton said:


> > But his idea for “fixing the administration’s mishandling” of high-speed rail would be not only to focus “like a laser” on the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak’s most successful route, but to privatize it. Experts and Democrats said the privatization plan he crusaded for is unworkable and could actually lead to more government outlays, not less.


Disagree with him here. But otherwise he seems to somewhat understand passenger rail and what it needs in most of the country. Why is Megabus taking off? Because it's able to compete timewise with driving a car and cheaper than driving solo (and often cheaper than driving with one other person.) There's also numerous frequencies in most areas to choose from, so you can make it work with your schedule, instead of having to modify it to work with the one-a-day frequencies most cities have with Amtrak.


----------



## afigg (Nov 14, 2012)

Adding to the recent news articles on Amtrak, Mica, Shuster, Congress, here is one from Politico "Hill's Amtrak antgaonism still on the long haul". Odd headline because it does not really reflect the tone and content of the article. From the article, it appears that Mica's attacks on Amtrak and the food service losses may be have the opposite effect of garnering sympathy and for Amtrak among the Democrats who find his hearings a waste of time.

Some excerpts



> Mica’s Amtrak focus has angered some Democrats, who say the chairman is overly antagonistic and focusing on pittances of waste rather than constructive policymaking. Mica likens his Amtrak leadership to that of a parent’s tough love, but Boardman said Mica’s food hearing was “a stunt” and the focus on hamburger costs — which Boardman admits surprised him — “misuses Amtrak.”
> “They accused me of focusing in the weeds, getting in the weeds. $833 million food loss in 10 years is not in the weeds,” Mica said of the hearing.





> Even with Republicans keeping control of the House, Mica’s Amtrak offensive is likely to soon end. Democrats expect a softer touch from the next chairman, likely Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), assuming Mica doesn’t get a rare waiver from his term limits.A rail title was left off the new transportation law, which means Congress is in line to write a stand-alone bill next fall with Shuster in the conductor’s seat.
> 
> Multiple Democrats told POLITICO that Shuster’s lineage as son of a former chairman — Bud Shuster — and origins in rail-heavy Pennsylvania will lead to a more sympathetic stance toward Amtrak. Rep. Bill Shuster represents a large state home to some of the country’s richest train-riding traditions.
> 
> “I think he’ll be little more sympathetic,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). “Pennsylvania is a state that’s right there. I just think that Shuster would be very reasonable on that.”


----------



## jmx53 (Nov 14, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> An interesting take on what might happen if/when Mica is no longer chair of the House Transportation Committee. I've included some excerpts, but read the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





afigg said:


> Adding to the recent news articles on Amtrak, Mica, Shuster, Congress, here is one from Politico "Hill's Amtrak antgaonism still on the long haul". Odd headline because ...


Thanks for posting these links.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 14, 2012)

> Shuster believes high-speed rail should be limited to the Northeast Corridor, which he says is the only place in the country with the appropriate conditions for it. He says high-speed rail is a “terrible idea” in California, even calling it a form of blackmail since the state will then be on the hook to finish the project. He’s called for taking the federal money allocated to California HSR and giving it to the NEC.


Idiocy.



> For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.


Well, that's true for the most part. Speed does matter too; average speed matters, not top speed: bring NY-Chicago down to 12 hours... or 10... or 8....



> But his idea for “fixing the administration’s mishandling” of high-speed rail would be not only to focus “like a laser” on the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak’s most successful route, but to privatize it. Experts and Democrats said the privatization plan he crusaded for is unworkable and could actually lead to more government outlays, not less.


Indeed, that is bogus.

I guess it depends on whether Shuster's pandering to the anti-train, privatization/profiteering, and 'drown government in the bathtub' portions of the Republican Party will outweigh his seemingly genuine support for reliable, frequent rail service.

Given his district location, it's possible he might actually fund the Philly-Pittsburgh route, if his sanity wins out over his party allegiance. He'll find pretty quick that it's necessary to build all-new track on an mostly-new alignment, because NS won't want more passenger trains over the tracks it now owns. And he'll find out that no private company is interested in building a new passenger rail line through the mountains. If he's still interested... well, then he'll probably be drummed out of the Republican Party, but I would gain respect for him!


----------



## jebr (Nov 14, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> > For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.
> 
> 
> Well, that's true for the most part. Speed does matter too; average speed matters, not top speed: bring NY-Chicago down to 12 hours... or 10... or 8....


Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure throwing money into an 8 hour run between NY and Chicago is the best use of our money. It's a long enough corridor that even if we could get an average speed of 79mph, we're still looking at 10 hours (based on Google Maps.) My guess is that that sort of trip will, at least with today's technology, be better served by air. Now, improving it would still be useful for the in between points, especially if the Pittsburgh to NY could be shortened to even eight hours (right now the Pennsylvanian is a nine and a half hour run.) Perhaps make it possible to do eight hours from Pittsburgh to Chicago (hour and a half reduction) and then those that want to do the full length could do it in sixteen hours (instead of the 19 hours on the Lake Shore Limited.) If you leave at, say, 4:30 PM from Chicago, you could hit NY around 9:30 AM (and run an opposing-time train for 2x/day frequency, minimum.) Even bumping it up an hour could be useful if someone's going to a conference that starts in the afternoon (or has an afternoon meeting,) as they'd have enough time to stop at the hotel, freshen up, and be ready for a 1 PM meeting.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 15, 2012)

jebr said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > > For the rest of the country, he says “frequency and reliability” are what matters for increasing ridership – not 150 mile speeds.
> ...


Well, I'd also point out that even if a 12-hour run NYP-CHI might not sell millions of tickets between the endpoints, you'd pile them up in intermediate markets like nobody's business. On that sort of timetable, the implied times from NYP to Buffalo or Pittsburgh are pretty impressive; even counting bus links, you'd probably more or less collapse intrastate commercial aviation in New York or Pennsylvania (depending on which route you took). The same thing would apply to getting NYP-MIA down to a Palmetto-style run (if with a late arrival at the endpoints): You might not sell the tickets from NYP-MIA, but if we shift to the ticket sales you'd get to/from Raleigh, Savannah, and so forth, you'd be packing multiple-daily trains on a regular basis and having to trot out either seasonal specials, extra sections, or special additions at times.

My point is that even if the endpoints aren't going to pile up all of the ridership, most LD trains have major intermediate markets to look at. In general, shooting for average speeds in the 80 MPH range seems to be a reasonable longer-term goal, and while still not cheap, it gives you the ability to crush bus and airline traffic for pretty much everything under 300 miles, and to seriously compete in the 400-500 mile range.


----------



## jebr (Nov 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


Strategically. I'm not sure the entire Chicago - NY corridor is strategic enough to warrant that, at least in the immediate future. With limited resources, I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI. Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.) If anything, perhaps doing a run-through Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit would be better than improving speeds, if the choice needed to be made. Getting Detroit in the mix, while making the overall route longer, is a large enough intermediate market to make it useful for at least one run a day. (Plus, that would put part of the route on 90-110mph track anyways if it runs to Chicago, and it takes advantage of improvements being made in Michigan.)


----------



## Anderson (Nov 15, 2012)

Well, for a starting point, pull the amended version of the HSR corridors, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Rail_07-09-2009.JPG

I don't think that was much changed following about 2000 or so. In general, I'd make five main adjustments to it:

1) First, get a line between either Albany or Springfield up to speed to connect with the Northern New England connection to Montreal, so as to allow direct connections from NYP.

2) Second, throw in JAX-ORL/MIA. Jacksonville is likely large enough to justify such a connection on its own (that part of Florida is growing quickly enough, and 90/110 MPH service along the line isn't exactly a crazy proposition; also, since the state already owns the ORL-DLD part of the line, working something out to buy off most of the DLD-JAX line shouldn't be completely impossible...the only issue is going to be if the FEC raises hell about facing a government-sponsored competitor there, and in such a case I'm actually highly sympathetic if they're serious about that link). As hinted at in the last sentence, though, the FEC folks might well take care of this.

3) Pick a link between Cleveland and the east...either the Empire or Keystone connection works here.

4) Link Houston and San Antonio. This won't squeeze out JR Central's plans (which would be faster Houston-DFW anyway), but it would both complete the Texas Triangle and connect SAS-NOL.

After that, the question becomes what line(s) to connect Texas to the Midwest with (Tulsa-KCY, Tulsa-STL, or Little Rock-STL all work), as well as whether to add any additional spurs to the network as well (Chattanooga or Memphis could be added in) or to add something in the Front Range. Still, such a network would be reasonably comprehensive, and most parts would be reachable from most other parts with no more than 24 hours or so of travel (at the longer ends), while most main pairs (NYP-CHI, NYP-MIA, CHI-DAL) would be _far_ shorter.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 15, 2012)

jebr said:


> I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI. Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.)


I'd be cautious about that statement. While my couple of trips represent a small sampling, I have to say that my few trips on the Pennsy when it ran to Chicago were surprisingly full during the mid-point of the run and much emptier as it neared the midnight arrivals at the end point.

Yes, granted all train hit their peek at the mid-points. But that's at least in part because of the heavy boardings at the endpoints, coupled with picking some ridership along the way. The Pennsy seemed to be more of a case of starting out on the lighter side, and then picking up more ridership than normal during the middle of the run.

I did one run off the summer peak between Cleveland & Toledo and reverse, and both ways the train was sold out with heavy boarding & disembarking along the way.


----------



## irv (Nov 15, 2012)

Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:

1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".

2. LD train tickets are costly, therefore trains "are only for the [hated] rich"*

3. LD trains generally pass thru "red" states - full of people who voted the "wrong" way.

*OK, VP Biden likes trains, is rich, and isn't hated by the Dems, but I suspect they aren't really all that

fond of him, either.

For those 3 reasons, I'm taking my AMTRAK trips next month, because next year may well be too late.


----------



## jebr (Nov 15, 2012)

irv said:


> Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:
> 
> 1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".
> 
> ...


2. Coach tickets are cheaper than airplane tickets, and sometimes cheaper than even Greyhound tickets. I wouldn't go that doom and gloom...probably keep the status quo.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> After that, the question becomes what line(s) to connect Texas to the Midwest with (Tulsa-KCY, Tulsa-STL, or Little Rock-STL all work), as well as whether to add any additional spurs to the network as well (Chattanooga or Memphis could be added in) or to add something in the Front Range. Still, such a network would be reasonably comprehensive, and most parts would be reachable from most other parts with no more than 24 hours or so of travel (at the longer ends), while most main pairs (NYP-CHI, NYP-MIA, CHI-DAL) would be _far_ shorter.


Just for answering the Dallas-Chicago question, I think the best choice would be to make the Tulsa route a spur, and have the line go through Wichita to Kansas City, where it can more-or-less follow the SWC with a direct run to Chicago. I like the Memphis idea, if you do run the train to Little Rock. I'm not sure why they picked Little Rock as an actual terminus though, due to its (relatively) small size. Extend that to Memphis, and from there it seems smart to connect that to Birmingham. Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 15, 2012)

irv said:


> Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:
> 
> 1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".
> 
> ...


1 is false. 2 is questionable. 3 is irrelevant.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 15, 2012)

irv said:


> Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:
> 
> 1. US is going broke, must cut back on "needless expenses".
> 
> ...


Nothing has really changed. It wasn't a change election in terms of the makeup of Congress. Also, Amtrak's position is the same as it has been for decades, with the LDs being a convienent political punching bag. The calculus is, and has been for a long time, at the end of the day Congress is not going to fund something that only benefits the Northeast. The national network is the trade-off for having federal support of the NEC (which does NOT support itself. Even with cooked books, the "profit" there is only against above-the-rail costs. If you factor in infrastructure, it doesn't come any closer to covering costs than the rest of Amtrak). Plus, red states or not, for Dems rail transport is politically correct. And coach is generally pretty cheap.

Amtrak is in a lot less danger now than it was during the Bush Administration, when there was a Republican Congress and Bush was gunning for Amtrak with a zero-out budget proposal. That is the closest to the edge they have ever been, I have gotten pretty phlegmatic about it, but even I did a "farewell" tour then as I thought the odds of survival were only about 50/50 that time. They are not anywhere near as close to the edge, politically, now. Besides, Amtrak is a minor sideshow. It is useful as a political punching bag, but it is a truly minor part of the budget.

Amtrak will continue to get enough appropriation to survive at the customary near-starvation levels, after having endured the equally customary ideological wailing; the kabuki will continue. Amtrak will get enough to survive, but not expand or significantly improve.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 15, 2012)

A different perspective on the Election:

1. The US is not broke, it just wastes Trillions of Dollars on Needless and Worthless things like Overseas Nation Building, Uneeded and Unwanted Weapon Systems and Corporate Welfare! Tax Code Reform is THE Biggest Need even though Politicians hate to use the T Word, they call it "Revenue" Now! :help:

2. While ALL Rail Fares are rising, such things as Regional and Commuter Rail are Booming, and even LD Trains like the Empire Buillder are used by Workers , Most Amtrak and Rail Riders are NOT Rich!

3. A Fallacy! While the Big Lie Machine informs the No Nothings that Washington is Evil, Congress' job is to Vote for their District and State, if you don't bring Home the Bacon you don't get Re-elected (ie Paul Ryan asking for Stimulus Funds (even though he Campaigned Against the Stimulus) for his District which he didnt get and he didnt even carry his own Hometown or State for his Ticket!)

"Amtrak Joe" is NOT Rich! Hes one of the few people that spent his life in Washington and didnt Cash in like so many do! And Everyone likes Joe, even the other party1 Hes a Friendly, Honest and Very Smart guy and the Voters must agree, the Democrats Won the Election Inspite of the Lies and Hate spread around about President Obama!

My Prediction is that when All is said and Done, Amtrak will still be here, albiet with some more Meddling by the Congress and with a Somewhat Smaller Allocation of funding resulting in still Higher Fares for Us! Details @ 11 as they say on the Local News!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 15, 2012)

Well, he may not be "rich", but he certainly has a lot more money than the average Joe. And not everyone in his home state likes him.

Joe's House


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> irv said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of hopeful thinking here, but logic says:
> ...


Very well put. It is good though that these false assumptions and associated tenuous logic are causing people to front load their contribution to Amtrak revenues. That could not hurt.


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 15, 2012)

Just an glass-half-full observation...

In recalling how things were in the late-60s, in 1971, and the early 70s, if someone had told me in the early 70s that Amtrak would still exist in 2012 and still be running a reasonable, if skeletal, network of full service long distance trains, I would not have believed them. Even at the beginning, it was fairly transparent that the purpose of Amtrak was relieve the railroads, particularly Penn Central, of the financial burden of passenger losses while shielding them from the political and public relations consequences of ceasing passenger service, then give the intercity passenger train quiet burial with a "well, we tried". It was intended to be a political fig leaf. I didn't expect Amtrak to survive more than 5 or 10 years and no one I knew did either. I certainly don't think the railroads did, and if they could have predicted this future, they well might not have supported Amtrak and preferred a few more years of losses in exchange for getting rid of passenger trains entirely. The "for profit" clause in the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970 was the poison pill that they could use to euthanize it, a poison pill that is still there. It likely survived its infancy because of 1973 Gas Crisis when a lot of people started using the train again, particularly in what became the NEC, and the NEC got perceived as critical. The enduring "NEC for the national network" trade-off evolved from there.

So in any event, I am damn glad the long-distrance train survived this long in this country. In 1970, it looked utterly impossible.


----------



## nocTurnal (Nov 16, 2012)

afigg said:


> It is the $117 billion Next Gen NEC plan with the 220 mph HSR trains. $33 billion of the $150 billion number that was publicized is for modernization and capacity expansion of the current NEC including the Gateway project, multiple 160 mph segments, bridge & tunnel replacements, Keystone East & New Haven-Springfield corridors.
> 
> The $117 billion Next Gen NEC concept is a very long way from starting construction, if it does manage to do so. It is a concept, not a detailed plan with engineering design so far.


Thanks for clarifying that to all of you who responded to me. That is too bad; it made big news when it was announced a few years ago. So with no actual plan to build, we're looking at the 2020s before we'd ever see construction... if they ever proceed. Wouldn't it at the very least create jobs? Isn't that a major part of the idea of rebuilding America's infrastructure?

It looks like Britain will go forward with their High Speed Rail 2 plan. An interesting visual graphic can be found here: http://www.guardian....apped-animation


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 17, 2012)

jebr said:


> Strategically. I'm not sure the entire Chicago - NY corridor is strategic enough to warrant that, at least in the immediate future. With limited resources, I'd rather see other lines restarted or improved before parts of that corridor. Improving to Pittsburgh makes sense...it'd connect with the rest of PA and allow for some decent state matching, hopefully. But there's not a lot of intermediate markets between PGH and CHI.


Think more carefully. There's a lot of demand from upstate NY (Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse/Albany, plus places which can drive to Albany) to Chicago. Much more than you might at first imagine. The flight connections are kind of crummy and they're getting worse -- and it's just a bit too long to drive comfortably for most people. Something similar seems to be going on in western Pennsylvania. While there is sort of a "void" between Toledo and Chicago, shrinking the time from Cleveland to Chicago suddenly improves service -- and attracts passengers -- for a lot of markets which are further east, but not on the east coast. (It's also easier, technically, than improving the routes east of Cleveland.)



> Cleveland's there, as is Toledo and South Bend, but South Bend already has frequent service to Chicago, and Cleveland and Toledo seem small enough to be lower on the priority list of improving service than, say, reinstating some LD routes in the West or getting more routes in the Upper Midwest (though that may be my bias kicking in.) If anything, perhaps doing a run-through Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit would be better than improving speeds, if the choice needed to be made. Getting Detroit in the mix, while making the overall route longer, is a large enough intermediate market to make it useful for at least one run a day. (Plus, that would put part of the route on 90-110mph track anyways if it runs to Chicago, and it takes advantage of improvements being made in Michigan.)


Although NY-Detroit is an extremely attractive city pair, diverting the Chicago-bound trains via Detroit slows things down too much, unfortunately -- it loses the existing customer base going from upstate NY / western PA to Chicago. A fast connection from Detroit-Toledo could change that calculation, of course. (So would reinstating the Canada Southern route from Detroit to Buffalo, but that seems very unlikely for many years to come, unfortunately.)

In the meantime, the best thing to do is to improve the final approach from NW Indiana to Chicago ("South of the Lake") -- this wastes an awful lot of time right now, going at 45 mph and stopping for freight and commuter traffic -- and improve the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh and NYC-Buffalo corridors. The part in between needs to be improved too, but for a while it's going to be easier to fund improvements on the ends, and they will benefit the overall route.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 27, 2012)

Looks like Shuster will be leading the House transportation committee.



> Mica Drops Chairmanship Bid, Endorses ShusterRep. John Mica (R-FL) has withdrawn from the running to remain chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was up against Republican term limits, which specify that no Congressmember can spend more than six years as the highest-ranking member of their party on a committee — regardless of whether that time is spent as chair of the committee (while their party is in the majority) or as ranking member (when in the minority).
> 
> Mica had been in conversations with House Speaker John Boehner about getting a waiver, as Rep. Paul Ryan did, allowing him to stay at the helm of the Budget Committee. But it wasn’t looking likely. So Mica did the gentlemanly thing: He pulled out and threw his support to Rep. Bill Shuster, the chair of the Rail Subcommittee, who was also jockeying for the hot seat.


----------



## afigg (Nov 27, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Looks like Shuster will be leading the House transportation committee.


On the whole, that is probably good news for Amtrak. At least Amtrak will be spared the show hearings Mica has been putting on to beat Amtrak up over food sale losses. I see that Mica is holding another one this week so Amtrak management can spend the day defending the company in a hearing, rather than running the railroad. I would expect Shuster will drop those hearings as a waste of valuable committee time.


----------



## jis (Nov 27, 2012)

For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 27, 2012)

Shuster can claim to be pro-rail, but so did Mica. Regardless of those claims neither one of them supports the current arrangement where government owns the passenger rail network. As a result you can expect both to be hard on Amtrak and looking for any way they can to privatize the NEC while letting the rest of the national network fall into perpetual irrelevance. As most folks know if a private passenger rail system were truly workable it wouldn't have been turned into Amtrak in the first place. If Mica and Shuster want to be taken seriously they should start by admitting that nobody is preventing anyone from promoting and funding as much private rail as they like _TODAY_. If the only suggestion Mica and Shuster can come up with is to take what has already been built and outsource it to yet another private entity for pennies on the dollar then how is that any sort of benefit for the rest of us? They should be looking out for how to serve the country as a whole, not just a tiny pocket of the Northeast, and certainly not just a few of their well heeled buddies. But that's not how our system of government is built or run. It's built and run to bring home barrels of pork paid for by millions but truly benefitting only a tiny few with the right connections.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 28, 2012)

It’s Official: Bill Shuster Named Transportation Committee Chair



> Republicans met today to choose committee chairs, and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) has been placed at the head of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The former chair, John Mica, dropped his request yesterday to stay on as chair despite term limits.


----------



## afigg (Nov 28, 2012)

jis said:


> For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.


I expect Shuster will have hearings and submit bills on privatizing the NEC. While he will have more power to pursue it as a committee Chairman, the effort to push for a privatization of the NEC did not get much traction even in the House. While the votes are still being counted, it appears that the Democrats will pick up 8 House seats in the next Congress. While the House will remain in Republican control, the next session will have fewer Tea Party members, a narrower Republican majority and more progressive Democrats, making it more difficult to get bills or amendments passed that attempt to privatize the NEC or severely cut Amtrak. That is before any such bill gets to the Senate or the Administration where it will die.

My guess is that Boardman would rather deal with hearings on privatizing the NEC because he will have a lot of allies backing him up on the NEC over the Mica hearings attacking Food & Beverage losses or corporate restructuring.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > For all you know Shuster will drop those hearings and start new ones for privatizing the NEC, which has been one of his favorite hobby horses in the past.
> ...


Privatizing NEC is a complete non-starter in the current legislative makeup in Washington DC. It might pass the House buried in some bill or the other. It has zero chance of getting through the Senate and even less chance of getting the Presidential signature. OTOH, reorganization of NEC and requiring some of the states to take on more financial responsibility for it is a somewhat different matter, and will likely get discussed at least even if nothing happens.

BTW, did Mica overtly attack Corporate restructuring? I did not notice so, unless just holding a hearing is considered an attack. I don't see the mere occurrence of a hearing as an attack. hearings are the means that the elected legislature has to monitor what is going on in things funded by them, and I would not deny them that privilege. Frankly I learned quite a bit about the thinking behind the restructuring from the hearing, something that I would not otherwise have learned, and found that very useful. I do like to see regular civil hearings and not the kind of partisan circus that mica managed to create at times.

BTW, on the matter of food service - the East Coast TOC instituted food service included in First Class tickets with food delivered at the seat from a pantry, and discontinued all Restaurant Car service (basically Acela First Class-like service), and revenues went up by a significant percent in First Class. This occurred over the last 6 to 9 months and reported on in the current issue of Modern Railway.

Even on the matter of food service, it is hard to fault Congress if it wants to learn what is being done, but it is appropriate to fault Congress when in its infinite stupidity it decides that it could run day to day operation of food service better than the professionals who actually run it. Congress should restrict itself to setting broad strategic goals in consultation with the professionals and then leave the execution to those who know what they are doing.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 29, 2012)

nocTurnal said:


> Thanks for clarifying that to all of you who responded to me. That is too bad; it made big news when it was announced a few years ago. So with no actual plan to build, we're looking at the 2020s before we'd ever see construction... if they ever proceed. Wouldn't it at the very least create jobs? Isn't that a major part of the idea of rebuilding America's infrastructure?


For big infrastructure projects of this type, such lead times are quite typical. I don't know when the Shinkansen was first proposed but France was experimenting with high speed trains as early as the 1950s. Progress could have been much faster but the political climate at the time wasn't supportive of injecting such huge sums into such a project.

British Rail has similarly been playing with the concept of a high-speed train going North-South since the 1960s. At the time they believed it could use existing rail lines and the gas-turbine APT-E was succesfully tested at high speeds in th early 1970s, with speeds of over 150mph being achieved. One of the publicity highlights was a staged parallel run with Concorde. The HSTs, which are still running today, were a low-tech spin-off intended as an intermediate solution with research on the APT being for a more long-term super-train. Later an electric version was introduced and even briefly used in passenger service, but the project finally abandoned due to costs and unresolved issues. Again a low-tech stop gap solution emerged with the Class 91 but the need for a more advanced train had not gone away and eventually this germinated in the form of the WCML upgrade which again had to be downscaled over cost overruns and feasibility issues. The present High Speed line proposal is thus the next attempt to solve an age-old problem, and will probably succceed where the previosu attempts had failed for the simple reason that all previous attempts failed due to compatibility issues in using a 180 year old line with very heavy traffic (including high numbers of commuter and freight trains). The only real solution is a new and totally separate line. I think the parallels to the NEC are obvious here.

Thus over 50 years we have seen the emergence of a solution, with different iterations playing a part and what is finally being built being radically different from what was first proposed.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2012)

Here is some potential good news....

https://apps.facebook.com/thehillsocial/content/269977

Shuster has spoken and hints at compromise on Amtrak funding


----------



## afigg (Nov 29, 2012)

jis said:


> BTW, did Mica overtly attack Corporate restructuring? I did not notice so, unless just holding a hearing is considered an attack. I don't see the mere occurrence of a hearing as an attack. hearings are the means that the elected legislature has to monitor what is going on in things funded by them, and I would not deny them that privilege. Frankly I learned quite a bit about the thinking behind the restructuring from the hearing, something that I would not otherwise have learned, and found that very useful. I do like to see regular civil hearings and not the kind of partisan circus that mica managed to create at times.


The issue with the Mica Amtrak hearings is the number he has had this year. This is what?, the 4th or 5th, and he plans to hold 2 more before the end of the lame duck session. The House committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a lot to oversee and there are only so many days available in the course of a year, especially with the fewer days the House has been in session since the Republicans took control. Mica is using a lot of committee and staff time to hold these hearings. He could have had fewer hearings, more focused on the relevant issues, such as corporate restructuring and Amtrak plans. Food and Beverage sales are a pretty minor item for a major House committee to spend time on.

But, I agree, Boardman's statement for this hearing is an interesting one and shows more thought and purpose behind his actions than many of the Amtrak critics, including the railfans who want this or that LD train restored, give him credit for.

According to the Trains Magazine News Wire article on the hearing (probably behind a subscriber wall), Mica did get in this dig: "Mica did get in a few jabs, bragging that he saved taxpayers money by not ordering a hamburger from the café car on a recent Amtrak trip from New York." If the NEC food service sales are making a small profit as reported, he did not save the taxpayers money by not getting a hamburger. On the other hand, if he was traveling on a congressional expense account, then he did save taxpayer money by not getting the burger.


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2012)

Yeah I agree overall with Mica's "let me toss $hit around and see what sticks approach" to be annoying and wasteful. I was commenting on just this particular hearing, which appeared to be timely and useful, possibly contrary to Mica's goals and expectations - an unintended consequence. In general I think Mica is looking for his own relevance at this point, and as all politicians are wont to, when they get in that state they easily make fools of themselves without knowing.


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 4, 2012)

> Four Republicans Who Might Work Across the Aisle on TransportationIn a Republican-controlled body, legislation needs at least one Republican co-sponsor to go anywhere. Any bill that benefits transit, biking, or walking can usually count on some Democratic support, but if it’s not at least nominally bipartisan, it will be essentially dead on arrival. ...
> 
> Who will do that in the next Congress? Streetsblog set out to identify the moderate Republicans in the House who might forge some solid, bipartisan transportation legislation, or at least keep bad ideas from getting too much momentum. After all, it was Republicans who helped torpedo the worst parts of the House transportation bill this year. These representatives could still make an impact in a chamber where the leadership remains hostile to transportation reform.


----------



## afigg (Dec 5, 2012)

Appears that Secretary LaHood may stay on into Obama's second term according to Politico: LaHood talking with Obama about staying. Good news if he does stay on for another year or two because Transportation policy and funding at this time has a greater need for a skilled politician who can negotiate and work with both parties on Capitol Hill and in state governments than a policy wonk or administrator type.

Of course, nothing is certain until there is an formal leak or official announcement.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 3, 2013)

*Mica’s New Post Gives Him a Good Vantage Point For Sniping at Amtrak*



> Perhaps Rep. John Mica’s most remarkable legacy as chair of the House Transportation Committee is the single-minded focus he gave to attacking Amtrak. Under the guise of wanting it to succeed, Mica has repeatedly excoriated it as a “Soviet-style monopoly” and a waste of taxpayer dollars. He’s tried to sell off its only profitable line, the Northeast Corridor, and made a mockery of every aspect of its operations, right down to food service. If there’s anything he got more glee out of criticizing, it was the Transportation Security Administration.
> Mica’s no longer chair of the Transportation Committee. But as of this morning, he’s got a new post from which he can take shots at these agencies.
> 
> The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where Mica was already a senior member, is consolidating two subcommittees into a new Subcommittee on Government Operations. That new subcommittee will oversee the TSA and Amtrak. And Mica will be the chair.


----------



## jebr (Jan 3, 2013)

Why are they being moved to that committee? By that standard, we should move everything to the Government Operations subcommittee.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 3, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> *Mica’s New Post Gives Him a Good Vantage Point For Sniping at Amtrak*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Senority is Everything in Congress! Once youve been a Chairperson and been on the Dole, er a Member, for a Few Years you're set for Life! It's Scratch my Back and I'll Scratch yours in the Joke known as the Peoples" Congress! :blink: Of course Speaker Boehner has his problems, he got re-elected but he can't Control his Party Members the way the great Speakers have in the past! Joe Boardman should get ready for More Dog and Pony Shows featuring Amtrak!!!


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (Jan 3, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> I agree with this. HSR is not the real answer. I'd rather see those Billions of $$$$$$ put into Amtrak to improve and/or expand service. And I'm not just saying that because I live on a 150 MPH stretch! Many more people in (say) MT, NV, NM, AR or WV I think would rather have another "slow" train that have a semi short stretch of 200+ MPH in some other area of country!


I'd just like to have ONE Amtrak train through NASHVILLE TN. The CONO barely touches the far west corner of Tennessee over 200 miles from Nashville and 400 miles from Knoxville and Chattanooga.


----------



## afigg (Jan 3, 2013)

> Mica’s no longer chair of the Transportation Committee. But as of this morning, he’s got a new post from which he can take shots at these agencies.
> The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where Mica was already a senior member, is consolidating two subcommittees into a new Subcommittee on Government Operations. That new subcommittee will oversee the TSA and Amtrak. And Mica will be the chair.


As a Subcommittee chairman, Mica is not going to have the latitude to call hearings at his whim w/o the blessing of House Oversight committee chairman Issa. Issa may allow Mica to have a hearing or two on Amtrak to keep Mica happy, but not the full set Mica was able to hold as the Transportation committee chair. Still, Boardman is likely to have to put up with a Mica led hearing on waste in Amtrak. However, Mica is in line to become the House Oversight committee chair in 2014 when Issa is term limited, which is an argument to hope the Democrats get control of the House in 2014. :giggle:

BTW, the Senate did a huge number of appointment confirmations yesterday prior to the end of the congressional session as the Senate Republicans relented on blocking a bunch of them. Among the confirmations, were 2 members of the Amtrak board. See Rail News link.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people may have heard about the blow-up in the House over Boehner dropping the plans to bring the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy emergency aid package to the House floor for a vote before the end of the session. The big aid package is now supposed to be passed in mid-January, but who knows if the $336 million for Amtrak will remain intact. Still, Amtrak could get $336 million in January for Sandy losses, flood mitigation projects, and starting the Gateway project and then get hit with $50 or $100 million in sequestration in March. :blink:


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 3, 2013)

afigg said:


> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people may have heard about the blow-up in the House over Boehner dropping the plans to bring the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy emergency aid package to the House floor for a vote before the end of the session. The big aid package is now supposed to be passed in mid-January, but who knows if the $336 million for Amtrak will remain intact. Still, Amtrak could get $336 million in January for Sandy losses, flood mitigation projects, and starting the Gateway project and then get hit with $50 or $100 million in sequestration in March. :blink:


In related news, you may have seen a list of "special deals" that were passed as part of the "fiscal cliff" nonsense. I'll let a friend's Facebook post explain.



> One of the complaints circulating about the bill Congress passed to avoid going "over the fiscal cliff" is "A hundred million or so for ... provides tax credits to certain railroads for maintaining their tracks. It’s unclear why private businesses should be compensated for their costs of doing business. This is worth roughly $165 million a year."
> While in general, I find subsidies of big business objectionable, one needs to understand why this subsidy has merit. Clearly the person who wrote the above quote does NOT have a clue, or is dishonest. Generally speaking, railroads are the ONLY form of transportation that relies primarily on PRIVATE investment to acquire, build, maintain, police, signalize AND pay taxes on their right-of-ways. ALL OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION (highway, waterway & aviation) rely in part or in whole on tax dollars to acquire, build, maintain, police and signalize their TAX-FREE rights-of-way.
> 
> The REASON railroads are granted a tax credit is to take a SMALL step towards leveling the playing field in the area of transportation. The USA continues to distort transportation economics, hurting our economy. I do not claim to have a good resolution to the problem, but we all need to be better informed about the fact that our transportation policy does NOT serve us well, and we need to try to resolve it. On this particular issue, I say "Thank You" to Congress and the President for taking a small step in the right direction.


----------



## LIRR (Jan 3, 2013)

The real problem with funding and expansion of passenger rail is that it fights very, very strong trucking and highway lobbies. They don't differentiate between passenger and freight in their lobbying. To them it is all rail and therefore, anything given to rail is taken from them...plus they feel they move things better than rail...and they throw the money around congress like you wouldn't believe. What kind of lobbying does Amtrak do? Not much, which is partly a function of them being a quasi-governmental entity.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 11, 2013)

> Jay Rockefeller to Retire From Senate in 2014from Streetsblog Capitol Hill by Tanya Snyder
> 
> Sen. Jay Rockefeller is expected to announce later today that he’s retiring from the Senate in 2014. The West Virginia Democrat will have served 30 years in the Senate. He chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the four Senate committees – though probably the least of the four – that crafts the surface transportation authorization, with a focus on rail.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Jan 11, 2013)

Nobody?

Not to mention, that'll amost assuredly flip one seat from blue to red in the 114th Congress.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 11, 2013)

Tennessee Traveler said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with this. HSR is not the real answer. I'd rather see those Billions of $$$$$$ put into Amtrak to improve and/or expand service. And I'm not just saying that because I live on a 150 MPH stretch! Many more people in (say) MT, NV, NM, AR or WV I think would rather have another "slow" train that have a semi short stretch of 200+ MPH in some other area of country!
> ...


I'd want it too, but it probably won't happen before 2016.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 16, 2013)

> Jeff Denham Appointed Chair of House Railroad Committee, Vows to Continue War on California HSR
> 
> 
> Congressman Jeff Denham, who barely survived his first bid for re-election in November, has been appointed to chair the House Transportation Committee’s Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials subcommittee. Denham has been a leader in the fight to stop the California high speed rail project, despite the numerous benefits it would bring to his district, and he vows to continue the fight to block new federal funding from his new perch.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 17, 2013)

Oh yay, friggin wonderful.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 22, 2013)

> LaHood Says He’s Staying On as Transportation Secretary
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jmx53 (Jan 25, 2013)

Good news that Secretary LaHood is staying on for now, I think he is doing a good job as SecTrans.

Unfortunately, more news RE: Mica and his anti-Amtrak crusade:

From a Jan 23,2013 article in Transportationnation.org:

"Representative John Mica (R-FL) will retain some influence in helping set transportation policy, even though Pennsylvania Congressman Bill Shuster has taken over as chair of the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mica was appointed to three subcommittees: Highways and Transit; Railroads Pipelines and Hazardous Materials; and Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. He was also named chair of the subcommittee on Government Operations under the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee."


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 12, 2013)

> Membership of Senate’s Primary Transportation Policy Subcommittee Announced
> 
> 
> Here’s the 2013-14 lineup for the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:
> ...


----------



## afigg (Feb 12, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Kirsten Gillibrand (Massachusetts)


Er, Senator Gillibrand is from NY. Pretty sloppy on their part.

What I notice is that 4 of the 7 Democratic Senators are from NEC state along with Senator Sanders from VT. Chairman Baucus is from Montana where the Empire Builder is seen as a critical transportation service. So there will be support for Amtrak from the Democratic members. But all the Republican Senators are from states with light or no Amtrak and transit presence. Likely to be some serious partisan splits on that committee when it comes to transit and passenger rail components of infrastructure.


----------



## jebr (Feb 12, 2013)

afigg said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Kirsten Gillibrand (Massachusetts)
> ...


And the ranking member is from Wyoming, which has no Amtrak service whatsoever. Idaho (which has another GOP member) only has one train stop, along with a few Thruway stops.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 12, 2013)

afigg said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Kirsten Gillibrand (Massachusetts)
> ...


These are all "Lightweights" in the Senate and this Committe isnt' One of the Prestige/Top Tier Ones that gets all the Pub but they will be Involved in Lots of $$$ being Doled out for Various Programs, Hopefully Rail will get it's" Fare Share" (Pun Intended! :giggle: )with the NE Senators and the Veep Amtrak Joe to Run Point!


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 12, 2013)

Despite the fact that Oklahoma pays for Amtrak service while New Mexico doesn't, I would expect Udall to vote for Amtrak and Inhofe to vote against. Sigh.


----------



## jmx53 (Feb 14, 2013)

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) no longer chairs the House Transportation Committee, but that doesn’t mean he’s eased up on his crusade against Amtrak. Calling the company a “Soviet style monopoly,” Mica used his afternoon address to the U.S. High Speed Rail Association to announce his plan to revive his despised and defeated measure to privatize parts of Amtrak.

Mica plans to introduce legislation to end Amtrak’s “monopoly” by allowing “open competition to provide intercity passenger and high-speed rail service.”"

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/02/13/mica-wont-let-his-grudge-against-amtrak-die-revives-privatization-scheme/


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 14, 2013)

> Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Rail Promoter, Announces Retirement
> 
> This afternoon at 2:00 p.m., Lautenberg issued a statement that “improving passenger and high-speed rail service in America and on the Northeast Corridor is a top priority that my Subcommittee will pursue aggressively.” That’s no surprise to anyone — Lautenberg is a strong voice for robust infrastructure spending, especially for intercity rail and urban transit.
> 
> ...


----------

