Dukakis on CNN - McCain threw him out over Amtrak

[Karch]

CNN - Larry King tonight.

Michael Dukakis, responding to a question regarding if he ever saw McCain's temper.. My transcript.

MD: "I've experienced it."

LK: "How?"

MD: "Well when I was the.. when Tommy Thompson was the Chairman of the Amtrak Board, by-the-way Republican Governor and a great guy, and I was the Vice-Chairman - we went to see Senator McCain and he effectively threw us out of his office. I've never had an experience quite like that."

LK: "Why?"

MD: "Well, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't think that this country needs a first-rate national rail passenger service. Doesn't believe in public transportation. You didn't hear a word tonight about putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding this country's infrastructure which is falling apart. I didnt hear a word of that, did you? I mean you'd have to ask him.. but it was'nt pleasant working with Senator McCain." (some other policy stuff mentioned)

LK: "He literally threw you out of the office?"

MD:"Well, he certainly invited us to leave."

 

[yarrow]

CNN - Larry King tonight.
Michael Dukakis, responding to a question regarding if he ever saw McCain's temper.. My transcript.

MD: "I've experienced it."

LK: "How?"

MD: "Well when I was the.. when Tommy Thompson was the Chairman of the Amtrak Board, by-the-way Republican Governor and a great guy, and I was the Vice-Chairman - we went to see Senator McCain and he effectively threw us out of his office. I've never had an experience quite like that."

LK: "Why?"

MD: "Well, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't think that this country needs a first-rate national rail passenger service. Doesn't believe in public transportation. You didn't hear a word tonight about putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding this country's infrastructure which is falling apart. I didnt hear a word of that, did you? I mean you'd have to ask him.. but it was'nt pleasant working with Senator McCain." (some other policy stuff mentioned)

LK: "He literally threw you out of the office?"

MD:"Well, he certainly invited us to leave."

karch, nice quote. one of our kids got a button that has a pic of a passenger train and says "trains for obama"

 

[jphjaxfl]

McCain's attitude is not surprising and its much the same as the current administration to public transportation.

 

[meatpuff]

MD: "Well, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't think that this country needs a first-rate national rail passenger service. Doesn't believe in public transportation. You didn't hear a word tonight about putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding this country's infrastructure which is falling apart. I didnt hear a word of that, did you? I mean you'd have to ask him.. but it was'nt pleasant working with Senator McCain." (some other policy stuff mentioned)
LK: "He literally threw you out of the office?"

MD:"Well, he certainly invited us to leave."

Wow, neat quote.

I've been kind of a news junkie this election cycle, and I am concluding that McCain is a black-and-white (as opposed to seeing the world in shades of grey) kind of guy. He is a crusader against corruption, graft, "pork", our enemies in the world, etc. There is good and evil, and these things are evil, and I think he feels of greatest use as a public servant when combating these evils in Washington. A David Brooks column last week argued something similar.

In my view, the Larry King exchange fits neatly into this narrative. Amtrak is not black-and-white, it is a grey issue. Amtrak's funding shouldn't be as large as highway funding, but in view particularly of the success and usefulness of the NE Corridor, its funding shouldn't be zero either. Something in between is right. However, Amtrak benefits some part of America but does very little for many other Americans (try to catch a train in SD or WY). So from one point of view it is just more pork, same as any Bridge-to-Nowhere or teapot museum or what have you. This seems to be McCain's PoV: Amtrak is pork, so it must eliminated.

There are so many other "grey" issues in the budget like Amtrak, I forsee some brutal battles if McCain is elected.

But this is an Amtrak forum, so what happens to Amtrak if McCain gets elected? Well obviously its prospects don't brighten, because McCain has crusaded against it most of his career. But it could be a heck of an strange battle. How do you make a man from Arizona see the usefulness of the NE Corridor? Even if you could build a duplicate NE Corridor in the middle of Arizona to even things out, it would make no sense there with the lower population densities and would hemorrhage money. It WOULD be pork in AZ. Yet it is vital in the Northeast.

Turn it around. The cities of Phoenix and Tucson would not be possible without the Central Arizona Project (look it up on Wikipedia). Why should I pay for part of this $3.6 billion project so people can build a huge city in the middle of a desert? Why don't they live near the Great Lakes like me, where we have plenty of water for free?

One man's pork is another man's vital government service.

 

[the_traveler]

Besides the CAP, dams along the Colorado River (such as the Glen Canyon Dam, Hoover/Boulder Dam, Davis Dam and Parker Dam) are all in AZ, and the lakes created by them (including parts of Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Lake Mojave and Lake Havasu) are all within AZ. Those seem like pork spending to me. And really I-17 from Flagstaff to Phoenix seems to be pork. And some of the road improvements (such as on AZ routes 95 and 168) seem like pork to me! (Why do you need a 4 lane "regular" road through the desert? :huh: )

And between when I visited in the 1980's and when I moved to Bullhead City in 1994, there was a BIG improvement (including a new 1 gate terminal) to IFP (Bullhead City/Laughlin International :huh: Airport). The population of the area is under 50,000 people - maybe under 25,000! That's not pork? :huh:

And that is just in his state of AZ!

Maybe if rail transport was improved, there may not be such a need for all these improvements to the roads and airports!

Disclaimer: I never voted for him before I moved.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

But this is an Amtrak forum, so what happens to Amtrak if McCain gets elected? Well obviously its prospects don't brighten, because McCain has crusaded against it most of his career. But it could be a heck of an strange battle. How do you make a man from Arizona see the usefulness of the NE Corridor? Even if you could build a duplicate NE Corridor in the middle of Arizona to even things out, it would make no sense there with the lower population densities and would hemorrhage money. It WOULD be pork in AZ. Yet it is vital in the Northeast.

If you look at the list of primary census areas, you'll see that the greater Phoenix area has a population of almost 4.2 million.

In the middle of the desert, you wouldn't want a commuter railroad full of curves that doesn't even average 70 MPH from one end of the line to the other like the NEC, but how about some 30 year old French high speed rail technology? It could provide train service from Phoenix to the greater Los Angeles area (about 17.7 million) and the greater Las Vegas area (almost 1.9 million), with less than 3 hour trip times. The grand total population of those three areas is about 23.8 million people. That's more than a third of the population of France. By highway distances, Phoenix to Las Vegas to Los Angeles is about 565 miles. This suggests the French are proposing to end up with roughly 2400 miles of high speed track, though it's not clear how they're accounting for double track, and whether one mile as the crow flies would therefore lead to two track miles. But even if the French are counting each track on a double tracked mainline separately, we'd be looking at an area with 37% of the population of France having 47% of the amount of high speed track the French are proposing to build, which dosen't strike me as terribly excessive.

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

About 565 miles could be traversed by a conventional-speed (about 47 mph average) train overnight (from about 6:31pm to 6:31am)--with business, shopping or visiting passengers leaving after work hours and arriving before work hours the next morning refreshed, having slept, dined, showered, etc. en route or with workers commuting some 50-100 miles away.

 

[Karch]

About 565 miles could be traversed by a conventional-speed (about 47 mph average) train overnight (from about 6:31pm to 6:31am)--with business, shopping or visiting passengers leaving after work hours and arriving before work hours the next morning refreshed, having slept, dined, showered, etc. en route or with workers commuting some 50-100 miles away.

And I would use that route if it existed. I am often making travel from Phoenix to LA. The best solution presently is taking the shuttle up to Flagstaff and taking the Chief overnight into LA. It works ok the other direction too, albeit a bit early. I have not done the Sunset because Maricopa at 2 am scares the hell out of me. It really needs a friendlier station location and better time.

Another route that could well enjoy an overnight is the Coast Starlight - which operates a Daylight schedule... should have a version overnight between LA and San Jose / Emeryville. And then of course is the long talked about but never-going-to-happen-it-seems LA - Vegas route. They could fill trains on weekends.

As to what happens if McCain wins the presidency - John McCain has made Amtrak an issue in the past. Some of the current Democrat players including Biden have brought Amtrak back into the news. I think McCain will go after Amtrak far more aggressively than George W. Bush; and the long-distance system could be a shambles after another 4-8 years of neglect. I can't say Obama would improve it any; but maybe I could hope for a round of capital investment in new equipment sometime in a 4-8 year cycle. Heck, maybe we'll get that LA-Vegas train - Hey Harry Reid - I'm a Nevada voter. When are you up again?

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

Congress is the one that funds Amtrak. The President will have some limited control through the DOT, but we have no idea who either president will pick

 

[the_traveler]

Congress is the one that funds Amtrak. The President will have some limited control through the DOT, but we have no idea who either president will pick

True, but if Congress APPROVES a $$$ Million or $$$ Billion budget, and then the president vetos it and proposes a $-0- budget, and they must compromise to get ANY funding for Amtrak, ...

 

[sky12065]

Congress is the one that funds Amtrak. The President will have some limited control through the DOT, but we have no idea who either president will pick

True, but if Congress APPROVES a $$$ Million or $$$ Billion budget, and then the president vetos it and proposes a $-0- budget, and they must compromise to get ANY funding for Amtrak, ...

What you also say is also true, but compromising is what our law makers should be doing instead of fighting each other along party lines and getting nothing done.

Even worse is the prospect that any political party, either party, achieves absolute power. This is a situation we seem to be in danger of happening under current trends. In the words of Lord Action:

"
I cannot accept, your canon that we are to judge pope and king unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way against holders of power ... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 
This similarily holds true with our country's executive and legislative branch as it does to any other government or people, and we are in a clear and present danger of this happening to us in the near future; the prevention of which is greater than any single interest or idology.

 

​

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

About 565 miles could be traversed by a conventional-speed (about 47 mph average) train overnight (from about 6:31pm to 6:31am)--with business, shopping or visiting passengers leaving after work hours and arriving before work hours the next morning refreshed, having slept, dined, showered, etc. en route or with workers commuting some 50-100 miles away.

Sure. But the average American has trouble getting enthusiastic about overnight trains.

And if we had a national high speed rail system, an overnight train departing Phoenix in the evening could probably reach any major west coast city in that same 12 hour window (San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver), as well as Salt Lake City, Denver, and Kansas City. Depending on the exact speeds used, 12 hours might even get somewhat further than that.

Between the number of travelers who are likely to take a 3 hour daytime train but not an overnight train, and the number of travelers who would benefit from overnight trains having a reach of 2000 miles or more instead of about 500-600 miles, I don't really think that building new conventional track on long distance passenger routes is a great investment.

And it's interesting to note that California voters are going to be voting about high speed track, not about the possibility of more overnight Los Angeles to San Francisco service.

One other thought: I wonder if showers in Metropolitan Lounges would make sense. They'd reduce water consumption on the train, and be convenient for passengers who don't want to try showering on a train.

 

[the_traveler]

I wonder if showers in Metropolitan Lounges would make sense. They'd reduce water consumption on the train, and be convenient for passengers who don't want to try showering on a train.

I think that would make sense. (But "make sense" and "Amtrak" - isn't that contradicting ideas? :huh: :lol: )

Since most of the connecting cross country service goes thru CUS, it would make sense to have showers at the Metropolitan Lounge at CUS. After all, some of the airline clubs offer showers. And most LD flights are only 5-8 hours long!

 

[wayman]

Even worse is the prospect that any political party, either party, achieves absolute power. This is a situation we seem to be in danger of happening under current trends. In the words of Lord Action....

Having just watched two superhero/supervillain movies back-to-back this morning (The Incredibles and Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog), I of course read this and wondered what sort of superhero (or supervillain?) politician Lord Action would be h34r:

(You meant "Lord Acton", I know )

 

[sky12065]

Even worse is the prospect that any political party, either party, achieves absolute power. This is a situation we seem to be in danger of happening under current trends. In the words of Lord Action....

Having just watched two superhero/supervillain movies back-to-back this morning (The Incredibles and Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog), I of course read this and wondered what sort of superhero (or supervillain?) politician Lord Action would be h34r:

(You meant "Lord Acton", I know )

Not being a student of Lord Action or Lord Acton, I would have no idea on what you wonder. However, wouldn't it be interesting to know what he would say specifically about todays presidential candidates? :unsure:

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

Arguably, the main reasons modern Americans aren't interested in trains is that they don't consider them to be as convenient or private as the automobile. The way trains are operated, trains are not that usable by the majority of travelers. This is simply because of the flying and driving mindset of people who aren't accustomed to train travel. People assume that the only way to go by train is during daylight hours-- with morning departures and evening arrivals, wasting a day of work and necessitating a wasted night sleeping at the destination.

Long-distance (or through) trains are best used at night-- hence, the sleeping car's importance. Trains very effectively enable travelers to sleep on the go. Not only is someone else doing the "driving" (without having to worry about their steering habits or ability) but, all the comforts of home (dining, lavatories, relative quiet and usually only gentle motion) are onboard and on the move with you. It may be only motel accommodations but motels don’t move you from city to city while you sleep!

Even with conventional-speed trains, the 300-500-mile corridors along the through routes I mention would be very usable if trains were scheduled for 6:31pm departures and 6:31am arrivals-- whether for approximately 12-hour state-wide or neighboring state, 36-hour East Coast-Midwest or North-South, 60-hour Midwest-West Coast or even 84-hour transcontinental trips. If 300-mile corridors are used, the speeds would be very comparable to fast freight which, along with vastly greater usability by the revenue traveling public and onboard advertising subsidy, could greatly free AMTRAK from the dead-end political control that makes it subject to those people who don't care about or understand the use of trains.

Sure, high-speed would be great. And, even 90-110 mph service, with no expensive grade separation needed, could make coast-to-coast travel only 60 hours (or, merely two days). With 150 mph service, it would only be 36 hours (or, only one day). Yet, I don't see politicians or a majority of their supporters clamoring for high-speed upgrades. And, even if they did, would the money be spent wisely with the most effect, such as I've mentioned?

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

True, but if Congress APPROVES a $$$ Million or $$$ Billion budget, and then the president vetos it and proposes a $-0- budget, and they must compromise to get ANY funding for Amtrak

And the last time something like that happened was back in 1995, when Clinton vetoed the budget from Congress, to which led the government to shutdown. Or again when Bush Sr did something similar 5 years earlier.

Since then, that situation has never come up again, and will never come up again. Especially given the current political climate. Plus, there is no longer a line-item veto.

This is why Washington has absolutely no ability to prevent the size of Government from expanding. Both sides will argue for what they want, and in the end, both sides get it. The president is powerless in those regards.

Plus, with all the anti-McCain threads, it looks like the hate-bloggers have invaded the site.

 

[AlanB]

Plus, with all the anti-McCain threads, it looks like the hate-bloggers have invaded the site.

Well you are on an Amtrak orientated site and it's no secret that Senator McCain has been one of Amtrak's biggest opponents. You can't expect a lot of love for him here because of that. And that's not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, it's simply reality. Many here have been quick to point out that both party's have done good things for Amtrak and that both party's have done bad things for Amtrak. John McCain is one who has tried to shut down Amtrak and he's made that quite clear that that's what he wants.

 

[PRR 60]

McCain's issues with Amtrak stem from the infamous Warrington era and the "Glidepath to Self-Sufficiency". Warrington would appear on Capital Hill and proudly show charts and graphs to describe how nicely Amtrak was doing. McCain, and others, saw that it was nonsense. Warrington would stonewall him, and that is not a good idea. Dukakis was on the Amtrak board and was backing Warrington, so he got the same treatment, and rightly so. When David Gunn came in, he exposed the utter failure of the Warrington era and basically confirmed what McCain had been saying all along: Amtrak had been deceptive and even dishonest in its dealings with Congress and the public about its financial situation. And, for the record. McCain and Gunn got along well. Two of a kind.

I don't think you will see anywhere any statement that McCain does not support intercity rail. His problem is with Amtrak as being the way to provide rail service. I can see validity on both sides.

 

[montereyan]

But this is an Amtrak forum, so what happens to Amtrak if McCain gets elected? Well obviously its prospects don't brighten, because McCain has crusaded against it most of his career. But it could be a heck of an strange battle. How do you make a man from Arizona see the usefulness of the NE Corridor?

If McCain gets elected he will push privatization or devolvement to the states. He would propose auctioning the NE Corridor - rails, cars, and service rights. That allows him to claim he isn't attacking the service but instead government ownership and operation. He would invite outside bids to run the long-distance routes and when none materialize, he will propose shutting them down unless individual states wish to step in. Same with intra-state routes. Here in California two of our three intra-state Amtrak routes are funded by the state and the third, the Pacific Surfliner, is roughtly a 50-50 split. McCain will use the success of the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquins to suggest states do the same.

All of this depends on Congress's willingness to support it, which would be a very open question. Democrats will have larger majorities in Congress, but they have also shown reluctance to oppose Bush's agenda, and might go along with some or all of McCain's privatization policies for Amtrak.

Personally I think privatizing service, devolving to states, and/or shutting down routes would be a very bad thing. But based on McCain's politics I think that is what he would propose.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The scarier part of Mc Cain's policy is, he wants to privatize social security

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Privatizing social security is generally a good idea. Social security operates on the assumption that people are not competent with setting up their own retirement funds, a self fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one. A separate agency should provide for the various other functions that social security provides- which should not be privatized.

 

[the_traveler]

McCain's privatization policies for Amtrak

Didn't we have privatization of passenger rail service before 1971? :huh: I don't want to go back to what was in the US in the late 60's!

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

Yes, but if Social Security was privatized, Congress would not be able to spend that money on other wasteful junk!

Its a non-issue. Yes, privatizing SS would dramatically increase everyones retirement assets, but it will never happen. Congress is too deeply entrenched in the current Pyramid-scheme system.

My point about McCain was that he will not privatize Amtrak. The current oil crisis has changed Amtrak from a luxury-novelty, to a genuine public-transit system. NO national rail system is profitable, but they exist because they are in the public interest. Like Hospitals and Highways.

Personally, I'm Libertarian, but I still recognize the need for a national rail system, as long as its a legitimate national rail system, and not a glorified heritage rail. Putting extra air in your cars tires will not solve the nations oil problems, but Amtrak can, if used properly. That doesnt mean throwing money at it either.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Sure, high-speed would be great. And, even 90-110 mph service, with no expensive grade separation needed, could make coast-to-coast travel only 60 hours (or, merely two days). With 150 mph service, it would only be 36 hours (or, only one day). Yet, I don't see politicians or a majority of their supporters clamoring for high-speed upgrades. And, even if they did, would the money be spent wisely with the most effect, such as I've mentioned?

When was the last time someone was proposing to build an Interstate highway, and people showed up at public meetings arguing that we shouldn't grade separate the highway from other roads, because that type of grade separation would be too expensive?

I'm also a little skeptical that 110 MPH grade crossings are actually safe, even if they currently happen to be legal. How many grade crossings are there in the US which trains actually regularily pass through at speeds exceeding 100 MPH? If we suddenly had 10,000 more such crossings, would the fatality rate for that type of crossing become significantly non-zero in a way that it isn't now because there are few to none of them?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should have more miles (if you count all tracks along a given mile of ROW as one mile, and all lanes of a single mile of a single highway as a mile) of passenger track than highway, and I don't think anyone is arguing that any railroad used exclusively for intercity passenger service with no commuter service needs more than two tracks, and every Interstate highway has at least four lanes (unless perhaps there's some non-conforming segment out there that you want to agrue counts as Interstate highway).

I'm not sure I've actually seen any numbers comparing, specifically, the cost of high speed rail construction to the cost of highway construction.

If we want to think of 36 hours as the minimum, I'm a little confused about where your 150 miles an hour comes from; if that is the average speed, it would be enough for 5400 miles. Boston to Los Angeles is roughly 3000 highway miles; traveling that distance in 36 hours requires an average of 83 MPH, which is about 14 MPH faster than America's flagship, allegedly 150 MPH train on its Boston to DC route.

I'm also not sure that a 36 hour minimum is quite equal to airplane travel time. That would seem to assume 12 hours of travel time is required to get from downtown Boston to downtown Los Angeles via airplane to be equivalent, and that the average person sleeps 12 hours a day.