Indiana proposed budget zeros out Hoosier State funding

[Pere Flyer]

Why do I use conservative to denote Republican? Because I am fairly new here and don't know how up tight the mods are about the "no politics rule".

I commend your respect for the forum rules. I suspect @neroden is simply describing his own way of thinking, not reprimanding you. My impression is that political discussion is encouraged as long as it’s about Amtrak and driven by policy objectives and not by ideology. E.g., a discussion on how Amtrak should be funded is fine, but a discussion of what rail service should be like in an [insert ideology here] utopia is not allowed.
I’m sure a moderator or administrator can describe the forum’s political rules to you more accurately.

 

[MikefromCrete]

You didn't violate any kind of forum rules. It was just Neorden expressing his own views.

 

[JRR]

I think all concerned need accept that the only CHI-IND rail route left is this CWI-MON-P&E used by Amtrak.

Both the CC&STL ("James Whitcomb Riley") and the PRR ("South Wind") have been chopped up. The Monon is "it".

CSX is not about to let it become a passenger only route for they have located several on line industries along such - and keeping them happy comes before any additional passenger trains.

To again, passenger train agency notwithstanding, offer competitive timings with highway, would require laying new track - and, volks, that is simply a "nottagonnahappin".

Ellis's IP superior on-board service experience meant nothing to the Coach passenger who simply "wants a ride".

Another mention of the “James Whitcomb Riley”, my train to Cincy during my college days!

 

[fredmcain]

I was trying to respond to neorden's post but was not able to make the "quote" feature work.
Here's what he said followed by my response.
I don't know why "conservative" is used as an adjective for Republican politicians, but I long ago gave up on finding any "conservation" in their policies. I really try to use the term "right wing" rather than "conservative" because I think "conservative" should be reserved for people who are conserving something.

In terms of rail, since the death of Paul Weyrich, it seems to have become some sort of social admission requirement of Republican organizations to oppose rail funding as a group, even for politicians who personally support it, which is weird, but that's what I see. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with policy, it's just some sort of bizarre litmus test. This is why you can get Republican legislators to support rail funding one at a time, but if they start putting lines in their party platform, it's all "destroy all rail".

Well, I can say that I consider myself to be very socially and economically conservative and align my thoughts with the Republican Party in general. However, there is this little “rail issue” that I have a problem with. In spite of my conservative views I truly believe that my fellow conservatives are flat wrong about rail.

What makes it so hard for me to swallow is the double standard. Passenger trains along with light rail transit and urban transit are expected to make money but highways seem to be exempted from that requirement. Our government at all levels is losing billions upon billions a year on highways. What if every mile of highway would be required to “show a profit” or get axed? If all the roads connecting Indianapolis with Chicago had tolls and motorists were required to directly bear all of the costs, they’d find out in a hurry how much it REALLY costs to drive to Chicago and back. Suddenly the cost of a round trip train ticket would look pretty good!

Then there is A.O.C. with her “New Green Deal” or whatever she calls it. I know, I know, I’m getting WAY too political for this forum *BUT* many Americans view her as way too extreme. How many Americans? Quite frankly, I don’t know. But if a lot of them do, then how does her rail advocacy really help our cause as rail proponents? What kind of a light does she cast us in?

I recently received an RPA newsletter that held AOC in high esteem – or, that’s the way I took it anyhow. I’m not so sure we should be so fast to get on board her programs and ideas. Should the RPA as a rail advocacy group become associated with her? I am only asking questions here since I don’t have the answers. Something to think about though, huh?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain,

Topeka, IN

 

[jis]

Fred, It is appropriate to ask RPA the question you pose about them. However, asking that question here may not have any effect on RPA either way since there are only a few people with major influence on RPA that hang out here regularly, and even those that are here may or may not represent your position to RPA, specially if they are at odds with yours. Best to become a member of RPA and participate in their members' forum, yes there is such a thing in google groups.

 

[sttom]

As for "politics" I generally fall on the side of where the evidence pans out. And so far, trains are generally better when it comes to cost. Yeah it might cost $1 trillion to electrify the mainlines and allow passenger trains to run at 125 mph, but the revenue from the trains will eventually justify it. Highways have just been a place to throw money and never ask if they are worth it. Other forms of transit need to get a guarantee of 75% federal funding since that is what the highways get, and up to 90% in some cases. And to top that cherry off, the feds fund highways between 40%-60% for basic maintenance. Its really stupid that rail advocated never seem to bring this up. States pay for at most 25 cents of every dollar spent on highways, but nothing on rail and very little on other public transit.