Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[Devil's Advocate]

Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??

The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.

Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.

Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access. If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.

If the government built an apartment complex with taxpayer funds and then gave the complex to me to operate, along with a bunch of other free land I could sell to others, it might be the same thing. In which case I'd have no problem allowing them to reserve one of the units for a government employee at no cost to them.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

As already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to cut back Amtrak service?

No, don't cut THIS arm off, we need THIS arm. Cut THAT arm off!

No, don't cut MY arm off, I need MY arm. Cut HIS arm off, instead, I don't care about HIS arm!

Fixed that for you.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Excuse me, but why are you all acting like any of these factions operate on logical decision making?

Trump is not unique. All politicians are self aggrandizing, and all of them make excessive hay out of the fact that the masses confuse motion with accomplishment.

I don't know how much danger Amtrak is in. It's risk as a part of our government is that it is small but visible and makes a great way to demonstrate accomplishment (I.e. Motion) without disturbing the actual status quo of the whole system.

If that's the play that the GOP are looking for, Amtrak is in trouble. The flip side was true with Obama. $4 billion is peanuts to signal massive change and accomplishment without actually disturbing the system.

 

[Gulfwind2]

It is sad to say but politically speaking it appears this administration has no use for transportation policy. Trump's victory in this regard was making some popular comments about "crumbling infrastructure", as well as getting to appoint a minority (Mrs. Chao) to his cabinet in an effort to silence critics and score points with the Heritage Foundation. Remember that Amtrak is strictly a northeastern railroad. In all places where Amtrak operates outside the NEC, it must conduct operations at the discretion of apathetic freight carriers who maintain their infrastructure to the least passable standards. Amtrak is an easy political target due to the fact that it is hardly even a railroad in the sense of being an autonomous party which can set its own schedules, track speeds, and pair frequencies with market demand.

Amtrak's problems transcend Congressional bickering. America has a 100% publicly owned & maintained surface transportation component- which is the network of highways that were mostly built during economic boom years between the Truman & Johnson administrations. America however does not have a comparable political subdivision to effectively carry forth the demand for intercity rail transportation nationwide. Neither the President nor Congress will change that unless the Federal Government restructures railroad ownership nationwide by way of full-blown nationalization, or unless the Federal Government wholesale ceases its relationship with automobile-oriented surface transportation. I know none of these things are likely to happen in the foreseeable future. But until one of those options is chosen and fully carried out, all Federal policy decisions regarding Amtrak will result in negligible or no impact upon the overall market share between modes in domestic transportation.

 

[railbuck]

Amtrak wants to cut funding.

Where did you possibly hear or read that Amtrak - not the administration, but Amtrak - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.

I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.

Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.

 

[jis]

As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.

Amtrak wants to cut funding. I (and others) want to figure out how much of the Amtrak system can be preserved with less money. Either the cuts won't happen or they will and we have to figure out what we can keep. Let the cannibalism begin

Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.

But we do have the Heritage budget out in public and isn't the AU's job to overreact to all Amtrak news?

Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.

And you wonder why I want privately funded rail so we don't have to deal with this crap.

If I were Wick and I spoke before Congress, I'd say Houston and its over 6 million people would lose intercity train service, Atlanta and its over 5 million people would lose intercity train service, etc. Meanwhile, the entire states of Montana and North Dakota have less than two million people combined, less than Houston, Atlanta, Denver, and Cincinnati who also would lose Amtrak as well. And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak. I'd imagine most if not all of the Houston area is within 50 miles of the Amtrak station there. Puts numbers in front of them and see how loud they speak. Just because Houston, Atlanta, and Denver have airports and highways doesn't mean they don't need trains (what if you are afraid to fly and/or don't have a car?). If you really care more about Rugby, ND than Miami, then don't just talk about the rural areas, put numbers in front of them. If there are 10 million people who would lose their only transportation option, put that 10 million in front of them and it speaks louder. You want to me Rugby, ND? I'll guess 98 of the 100 senators have never heard of the town (and maybe even the 2 haven't either). Talk about Orlando. Better yet, show a picture of a crying Mickey Mouse for special effects.

Of course Senate speak would say North Dakota and Montana are just as important as Texas and Florida and if one of those people get in charge of Congress (like Byrd) "more important". Hopefully the House will have more say as to the amount of the Amtrak subsidy.

 

[JoeBas]

I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.

Actually, the PRESIDENT is proposing cutting funding.

So your correction can stand corrected.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Philly: A quick Civics Lesson about today's Congress: The current make up of the House is a dysfunctional partisan mess led by a Heritage puppet (Paul Ryan)and and it contains a herd of know nothing's called the Freedom Cacus.

The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)

With the White House in total chaos and possible impeachment looming, the Senate is the best hope for a sane budget ( that includes funding for rail)and also the strongest check against the craziness that is coming out of the gang that can't shoot straight @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the zealots in the peoples House.. YMMV

As always, most AU members are totally in support of bringing back the Broadway Ltd. and overwhelmingly against killing your nemesis, the Byrd Special,aka The Cardinal.

 

[JoeBas]

The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)

Correction: The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisan since their party hasn't figured out yet how to gerrymander entire states, and they have to remain somewhat centrists if they want to keep their seats.

YW.

 

[A Voice]

As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.

Amtrak wants to cut funding.

Where did you possibly hear or read that Amtrak - not the administration, but Amtrak - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.

I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.

Actually, no. I would expect it will be Congress which restores the funds the administration's budget proposal omitted

Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??

The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.

Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.

Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access. If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.

If the government built an apartment complex with taxpayer funds and then gave the complex to me to operate, along with a bunch of other free land I could sell to others, it might be the same thing. In which case I'd have no problem allowing them to reserve one of the units for a government employee at no cost to them.

Modern freight railroad infrastructure - the Class 1's, primarily - is neither built nor maintained with taxpayer funds.

Incremental improvements and capacity expansion has taken place in a handful of locations, which are federally or state funded, but such construction is for the benefit of the passenger service, not freight haulage.

 

[A Voice]

Until Congress actually votes on a budget resolution, appropriations bill, or continuing resolution, we do not know whether they want to cut, increase, or maintain Amtrak's funding.

But we do have the Heritage budget out in public and isn't the AU's job to overreact to all Amtrak news?

Do you really believe that whatever "we" figure out at AU will have any bearing on what actually happens, specially as far as operational details are concerned? AFAICT it is Congress and Amtrak that will do most of the actual figuring out and we will just be able to protest some.

And you wonder why I want privately funded rail so we don't have to deal with this crap.

If I were Wick and I spoke before Congress, I'd say Houston and its over 6 million people would lose intercity train service, Atlanta and its over 5 million people would lose intercity train service, etc. Meanwhile, the entire states of Montana and North Dakota have less than two million people combined, less than Houston, Atlanta, Denver, and Cincinnati who also would lose Amtrak as well. And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak. I'd imagine most if not all of the Houston area is within 50 miles of the Amtrak station there. Puts numbers in front of them and see how loud they speak. Just because Houston, Atlanta, and Denver have airports and highways doesn't mean they don't need trains (what if you are afraid to fly and/or don't have a car?). If you really care more about Rugby, ND than Miami, then don't just talk about the rural areas, put numbers in front of them. If there are 10 million people who would lose their only transportation option, put that 10 million in front of them and it speaks louder. You want to me Rugby, ND? I'll guess 98 of the 100 senators have never heard of the town (and maybe even the 2 haven't either). Talk about Orlando. Better yet, show a picture of a crying Mickey Mouse for special effects.

Of course Senate speak would say North Dakota and Montana are just as important as Texas and Florida and if one of those people get in charge of Congress (like Byrd) "more important". Hopefully the House will have more say as to the amount of the Amtrak subsidy.

You have a legitimate point; There is no need or call to attack rural regions of the country to make it. Both urban and rural areas have a need for modern rail passenger service; Obviously in more rural communities there is less demand, and correspondingly there is also less train service. Don't begrudge someone their one train a day just so you can have a sixth option for a train to Chicago. Some major metropolitan areas - and the smaller communities which link them - have no train at all. Want to trade places?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisian since they are patriots that care about this country. (John McCain,Lindsey Graham,Susan Collins to name a few)

Correction: The Senate still has a few Republican Senators that are sane adults and are bi-partisan since their party hasn't figured out yet how to gerrymander entire states, and they have to remain somewhat centrists if they want to keep their seats.

YW.

I admire your cynicism, if you properly hone it, you will will go far (or end up a depressed alcoholic burn out, like me- depending on your luck).
But not everybody in Senate is bad. Dunno Graham or the other Jim mentioned, but McCain is a patriot, he is sane, and he has what he feels to be the country's best interests at heart (and sucker punched himself more than once in furtherance of that- including throwing his last chance at the presidency). I disagree with him on more issues than I can name, especially rail, but don't discount the fact he is a good man.

 

[Lonestar648]

I am not a fan of McCain's anti-Amtrak stance and never have been. The people of Arizona are thrilled with this position, so any stops in Arizona he would be happy to eliminate. A long time ago, he stated that if you didn't want to drive or fly, then you had no business traveling.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

McCain is a patriot, he is sane, and he has what he feels to be the country's best interests at heart...

McCain of 2000 was a genuine maverick willing to buck his party and even (gasp!) negotiate in good faith with the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately McCain of 2008 was a changed man who willingly cowed to power and helped further divid and poison our national discourse by selecting a spineless reality show reject as his running mate. McCain of today is almost completely unrecognizable to me. I honestly cannot even begin to imagine what he gains from playing the role of a (mostly) forgotten cog in a system so corrupt and hypocritical that it no longer bears any resemblance to the views and values he claimed to champion once upon a time.

 

[Rover]

Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??

Nationalize the rails. With the right Supreme Court, you can get anything accomplished, Union or no.

 

[jis]

Actually Amtrak's track access charges are very modest and barely cover the actual cost of maintaining the tracks to passenger rail standard, something that freight railroads need to do to enable Amtrak to run, and usually don't do as good a job as they could.

So it is a huge myth to say that Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. The arrangements could be a little more market driven, in which case Amtrak would probably pay substantially more.

 

[Carolina Special]

What other industries do you wish to nationalize while we're at it?

The airlines, the truckers and the car companies? Put all transportation on an equal footing with the railroads.

Why not the whole Silicon Valley, Wall Street, big oil and the entertainment industry? That will take care of their outlandish pay packages and private jets.

Where should it end? Before or after we shoot ourselves in the foot or worse?

 

[Ryan]

The airlines, the truckers and the car companies?

All move about the country on a nationalized infrastructure built, owned, and maintained by the government.

Put all transportation the railroads on an equal footing with the railroads all transportation.

That's the idea, yes.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Ryan wins the thread!

 

[dlagrua]

The entire US political and business sectors are corrupt. They can be compared to Mussolini's Fascist Italy of the 1940's where business and government joined to form a single ruling force.

The reason why Amtrak LD routes will remain is that the states along the routes West are meaningful for the majority party. They represent votes and jobs. The representatives in those states are not about to cut their nose to spite their face. Amtrak has been down this road before. I fully expect Amtrak to continue on unchanged.

 

[Carolina Special]

OK so you want to nationalize all transportation to put on an equal footing with Amtrak. It could get a bit expensive.

UP has a market capitalization of $86B, CSX $43B, NS $35B, KSU $9B according to my Morningstar. BN is owned by Berkshire so call it another $86B like UP. You're already up to $259B without counting the smaller railroad operators, the airlines, the truckers, bus lines, cruise ships, and the auto industry. It would cost a bundle, especially if you were required to pay a takeover premium.

Now maybe you could force some of these companies to sell for virtually nothing, but it would probably require another 2008 economic crisis. Like Obama was able to pull off with the original GM shareholders, as they got zilch when Detroit was "saved". More likely you wind up with a tough slog, like FDR trying to nationalize the utilities industry in the 1930s before more important things like WWII came along.

If you want to go forward with this, please use your tax dollars to pay for it and not mine.

 

[Lonestar648]

Nationalizing the Transportation Systems is not the solution. What doers the government know about running these businesses. More committees, departments, and over site and red tape. With the current Congress and White House we will go away from more Government. Look, they want to privatize the FAA ATC system.

 

[RSG]

And that two million assumes everyone in Montana and North Dakota is served by Amtrak. According to the NARP state stats (https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/states-1.pdf), only 11% of Montana residents within 50 miles of an Amtrak station and only 7% within 25 miles while only 32% of North Dakota is within 50 miles (24% within 25 miles) so imagine how many residents in those states would actually lose Amtrak.

I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people are willing to travel to [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.

Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights. Both examples impact the associated airport and Amtrak stations. So the impact of losing the Empire Builder would affect more than 11% of Montana residents or 32% of North Dakotans. I would assume such analysis doesn't include the residents of far-Eastern Montana who are closer to services in North Dakota and thus use the Williston station and therefore aren't included in any Montana numbers. In other words, not everyone has to be served in a particular area for a significant impact to be made upon that area.

 

[Ziv]

RSG nailed it. People drive a long way to catch the Empire Builder because everything in the west, and in Montana especially, is spread out over a huge spread of land. When I was growing up on the Hi-Line in Montana, we would drive 300 miles for a basketball game and the girls in my high school drove 280 miles to the big city of Billings to shop for clothes. The Empire Builder is a big thing in Montana (and North Dakota I would imagine) and not just for the very northernmost towns.

I would just point out that studies and fact sheets which point out "distance from [something]" are irrelevant and inherently flawed if they don't also include "distance people are willing to travel to [something]". In the interior West, people are used to driving distances for everyday reasons that people on the coasts and near population centers would consider unthinkable outside of the context of a major road trip.

Personally, I travel four hours (240 miles) to the nearest Amtrak station. Relatives and neighbors travel the same distance just so they can fly out of a major airport with more flights, more connections, and--almost always--cheaper flights.